03-2459 U.S. v. Morgan

Listen to this article

“Whatever this evidence showed, however, it was not (exclusively) ‘other’ crimes. The goal was to establish that Jones was acting as Morgan’s agent, an essential step toward proving this crime. It is hard to see how agency could have been shown without demonstrating that Green and Morgan had an established business relation in which Morgan used a courier for delivery. Details such as the transacting parties’ lingo and quantities were essential to lend verisimilitude to Green’s claim. A tale bereft of narrative is hard either to follow or to credit. Perhaps the prosecutor went overboard, eliciting more than was necessary to flesh out Green’s story. But there are no bright line rules for how much is too much, so we must rely principally on the good sense of district judges to keep things within appropriate bounds. That discretion was not here abused. A defendant who wants to curtail the use of facts that are simultaneously both vital and prejudicial should approach the prosecutor with a proposal that the parties stipulate to the fact in question (here, that Jones was acting on Morgan’s behalf). See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997). Morgan did not make such an offer, likely because the stipulation would have been no less damning than Green’s actual testimony. There is accordingly no reason to upset the verdict.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Easterbrook, J.