An indictment alleged that during the period from February 1994 to March 1995, D had illegally attempted to dissuade a witness named Feronica Isaacs from testifying in the drug trafficking trial of Stephen Hester and others. The United States (P) notified D that it intended to introduce evidence at trial indicating that D had tampered with witnesses in 1986. D filed a motion in limine to exclude that evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. P presented two witnesses whom it intended to have testify to the 1986 conduct. According to one witness, before D's 1986 trial for armed robbery, D threatened to shoot him if he testified against D at trial, and according to the other, before the same trial D had threatened to 'deal with' him for his role in alerting the authorities to Queen's involvement in the armed robbery. The district court ruled the prior acts were admissible under 404(b) to show intent for the crimes charged and that, under 403, the testimony would not be unduly prejudicial. P introduced the prior acts of witness tampering. Then it introduced evidence of a conspiracy between D and Hester to tamper with witnesses before and during Hester's trial. D allegedly threatened Isaacs, telling her that it would be in her best interest not to testify against Hester, and attempted to bribe her not to testify. D admitted that he had visited Isaacs and had spoken with her, he denied that he had threatened or bribed her. D claimed he visited Isaacs only to suggest that she visit Hester's attorney. The district court instructed the jury not to consider D's prior acts evidence for any purpose other than to infer intent as to the charged crime. D was found guilty and appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.