Court: District Court, D. New Mexico; October 15, 2016; Federal District Court
Defendant Maynard Shirley filed objections to the United States' exhibit list and a motion in limine regarding the possession of knives and an axe. A hearing was held on September 29, 2016, to address whether evidence of Shirley's ownership of certain knives and an axe could be introduced at trial. The court ruled the evidence of the knives inadmissible due to an imbalance between its probative value and the risk of unfair prejudice, noting that the actual knife allegedly used in a stabbing was not included. Conversely, evidence of the axe was deemed admissible, as it was pertinent to the allegation that Shirley used it to destroy a vehicle. The court partially sustained and overruled the exhibit objections and granted in part while denying in part the motion in limine.
The factual background indicates that Maynard Shirley's brother, Elijah, and his girlfriend, Valerie Jim, had recently ended their relationship, leading her to begin a new relationship with Brandon BlueEyes, a close friend of Elijah. Following Valerie's departure, Elijah sent numerous texts to Valerie's mother asking for her whereabouts. Valerie's mother indicated Valerie was living with Brandon and advised Elijah to let her move on. Elijah expressed anger towards Brandon and threatened violence against him. The court emphasizes that Maynard Shirley is presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially as he has asserted an alibi defense. The court's factual recounting includes details surrounding the events leading to the alleged crime and Shirley's subsequent arrest.
On March 21, 2015, E. Shirley and his brothers, Maynard and Michael Shirley, all members of the Navajo Nation, forcibly entered the home of the BlueEyes family in Fruitland while they were asleep. They proceeded to B. BlueEyes’ bedroom, where they attacked him as he exited the room, with E. Shirley using an unknown object to stab him. V. Jim witnessed the assault. Perry BlueEyes, B. BlueEyes’ father, intervened after hearing the commotion but was stabbed by one of the Shirley brothers with a banana-shaped knife. V. Jim eventually stopped the attack, but by then, Perry BlueEyes was seriously injured and unable to help his son.
Meanwhile, J. BlueEyes and her sister, Lakisha, were sleeping in another bedroom. Upon hearing the disturbance, J. BlueEyes saw Maynard Shirley stabbing her brother and was subsequently threatened by him with the knife. She instructed Lakisha to call 911. During the chaos, one of the Shirley brothers exited to retrieve a flare gun and shot at Perry BlueEyes, who was on the floor. The Shirley brothers then fled the scene. J. BlueEyes later recalled V. Jim holding B. BlueEyes, crying and stating that Maynard was responsible for his stabbing and death.
At 2:44 a.m., L. BlueEyes reported to 911 that her brother, Brandon BlueEyes, and father, Perry BlueEyes, had been stabbed in their trailer home, noting the presence of significant blood and that the Shirley brothers had fled the scene. Navajo Nation Police Officers Kurtis Halkani and Jo Donna Salt were dispatched at 2:50 a.m. A relative of the victims contacted the Shiprock Police Department at 3:06 a.m., stating Brandon was unresponsive due to a beating. Officer Halkani arrived at 3:09 a.m., followed by Salt, who secured the area. Upon entering, Halkani found Brandon on the ground, unresponsive with a large stab wound, while Perry was discovered on the couch with multiple stab wounds. Blood was present throughout the residence. V. Jim, a witness and former partner of Brandon, provided information about the Shirley brothers, indicating fear of them, especially Maynard, who had a criminal history. At 3:38 a.m., Perry was taken to San Juan Regional Medical Center, where he was treated for serious injuries. In an interview, he described his attacker as slightly smaller than himself and mentioned being stabbed with a banana-shaped knife. Later that day, FBI Special Agent Cary S. Cahoon and Criminal Investigator Jefferson Joe began searching for the Shirley brothers, meeting their mother, who revealed they had vacated their home in Kirtland, leaving only Michael Shirley behind.
E. Shirley and Maynard Shirley moved to their grandmother’s home on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Farmington, New Mexico. In their absence, A. Shirley encouraged Michael Shirley to arrange a meeting with law enforcement officer Cahoon to discuss an incident. A meeting was set for 3:00 p.m. at the Criminal Investigations office, but Michael failed to confirm his attendance despite multiple attempts by Cahoon to reach him. On March 23, 2015, A. Shirley, Michael, and other relatives visited their grandmother to persuade E. and Maynard to surrender. E. Shirley agreed to turn himself in, but Michael and Maynard refused, asserting that law enforcement could come to arrest them if they chose. This led to a confrontation where the brothers yelled at their relatives, causing them to leave out of fear for their safety.
E. Shirley was taken to the station later that day, where he claimed ignorance of the incident involving Brandon BlueEyes and invoked his right to an attorney after some questioning. Following E. Shirley's departure, Maynard, Michael, and others went to a location near the grandmother's house to access Maynard's white BMW, from which they removed their belongings, wiped the vehicle to eliminate fingerprints, and subsequently vandalized it by breaking windows and setting it on fire. On March 24, 2015, family members informed law enforcement about the burned car. Officers discovered the wrecked BMW at the property, but Michael and Maynard were missing.
On March 25, 2015, U.S. Magistrate Judge B. Paul Briones issued an arrest warrant for Maynard Shirley. The FBI received information that Shirley and A. Williams were in Aztec, New Mexico, prompting law enforcement to surround the trailer where they were staying. After failing to make contact, officers entered the trailer with a key provided by a cousin. They found A. Williams in the bathroom, who claimed not to know Shirley's whereabouts. As officers searched the residence, they discovered Maynard Shirley concealed between a mattress and box spring, armed with a knife that was identified as resembling a hunting knife. Shirley was taken into custody, and a search warrant for their belongings led to the discovery of multiple knives and an axe.
The U.S. initiated a criminal complaint on the same day, detailing the facts and linking the Shirley brothers to a stabbing incident involving Brandon and Perry BlueEyes. The complaint established probable cause to charge E. Shirley, Maynard Shirley, and Michael Shirley with murder, aiding and abetting, and assault. Michael Shirley was arrested the following day, completing the custody of all three brothers, as E. Shirley had surrendered on March 23. On April 14, 2015, a Grand Jury indicted them on three counts related to the murder and assaults involving the BlueEyes.
On February 25, 2016, the Court scheduled a trial for October 17, 2016. On September 21, 2016, Michael Shirley and E. Shirley both pled guilty to all counts in the indictment, leaving Maynard Shirley as the sole defendant for the upcoming trial. The United States expressed the intention to introduce exhibits, which Maynard Shirley initially objected to. However, most objections were resolved, with the main dispute focusing on the admission of evidence related to certain knives and an axe. Maynard Shirley specifically objected to the introduction of pocketknives, a Bear Grylls Gerber Knife, a Bear Grylls Gerber Axe, and related photographs. Additionally, he contested evidence of holding a knife at the time of his arrest.
The United States filed a motion to admit evidence of conduct not charged in the indictment, arguing it was relevant to the circumstances of the arrest on March 25, 2015, where Maynard concealed himself with a knife. They claimed this evidence was intrinsic to the crime and relevant to show consciousness of guilt, as per Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically rule 404(b). The Court will deliberate on the arguments presented in various pleadings filed since late August 2016.
Maynard Shirley filed a response to the United States’ Res Gestae Motion on September 6, 2016, objecting to the admission of evidence regarding a knife he was holding at the time of his arrest. He contends the evidence is irrelevant to the charges against him, as there is no connection between the knife and the alleged crimes. Furthermore, he argues that even if the evidence is considered intrinsic under rule 404(b), its minimal probative value is significantly outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
On the same day, the United States submitted its exhibit list, which included 192 items, among them photographs and physical evidence of a Bear Grylls Gerber Knife and Axe. This list was later amended to include six additional items not relevant to this discussion.
In a reply dated September 20, 2016, the United States acknowledged that it does not have direct evidence linking the knife Shirley possessed to the crimes but argued that his possession of multiple knives is relevant as circumstantial evidence regarding his access to weapons and consciousness of guilt. The United States asserts that this evidence does not constitute impermissible propensity evidence but reflects conduct related to the charges.
On the same date, Shirley filed objections to the United States’ exhibit list, specifically targeting the Bear Grylls Knife and Axe, arguing that these items are irrelevant and inadmissible under rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. He further claims that any minimal probative value is outweighed by potential unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading the jury, as per rule 403.
On September 26, 2016, the United States renewed its Res Gestae Motion, arguing that Maynard Shirley's possession and use of knives are relevant circumstantial evidence of his intent to commit the charged offenses. The United States asserts that this evidence demonstrates Shirley's familiarity with knives and his efforts to dispose of a machete-like weapon used in the offenses on March 21, 2015. The United States claims that the evidence is pertinent to Shirley's participation in the offenses and his role in aiding others, as well as his association with the crimes and access to weapons. They further argue that evidence of Shirley holding a knife at the time of his arrest indicates his intent and consciousness of guilt, and that his multiple knives suggest his capability to produce weapons during the offenses. Additionally, the United States contends that behaviors such as flight and concealment are relevant circumstantial evidence of guilt.
In response, Maynard Shirley filed a motion in limine on the same date to exclude evidence of his ownership and prior possession of knives and an ax. He argues that there is no evidence linking these items to the offenses, deeming them irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. He requests that the Court instruct witnesses not to mention these matters during their testimony.
Maynard Shirley contests the admissibility of evidence regarding knives, asserting that the United States lacks proof linking any of the knives to the alleged offense on March 21, 2015. He emphasizes that the knives do not match witness descriptions from the scene and that he neither used nor threatened to use the knife found during his arrest. Shirley argues this evidence is inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, and 404. Under Rule 402, he claims the evidence is irrelevant since it does not pertain to the charges. He cites *United States v. Linares* to support his position that possession of knives unrelated to the offenses should be excluded. Regarding Rule 404, he contends that introducing evidence of other acts to suggest he has a violent character is impermissible, referencing *United States v. Thomas*. Under Rule 403, he argues that any probative value from the knife possession is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, stating that evidence of flight typically indicates guilt but is only marginally relevant in this context, as established in *United States v. Johnson*. He concludes that, without evidence of using or threatening to use the knife, the inference drawn from its possession lacks credibility. Therefore, he urges the Court to exclude the knife evidence.
Maynard Shirley objects to the introduction of evidence regarding an axe, arguing that there is no proof it was used in the attacks related to his charges. He claims the United States aims to use the axe's presence to imply "consciousness of guilt," which he argues is only marginally relevant to the actual crimes. He cites the lack of evidence connecting the axe to the destruction of a BMW and asserts that any minimal probative value is outweighed by the risks of unfair prejudice, confusion, and misleading the jury. Shirley further contends there is a significant risk that the jury may incorrectly infer that possession of the axe suggests involvement with the knives used in the offenses or that the axe was used in the crimes themselves, urging the court to exclude this evidence.
In response, the United States argues that both the Bear Grylls Gerber Axe and Knife are relevant and admissible, asserting they do not pose a risk of unfair prejudice or confusion. The government claims that the Shirley brothers intended to eliminate evidence of their crimes, including items used to injure victims. The United States intends to show that the Gerber Knife was associated with Shirley's attempt to evade law enforcement, while the axe was relevant to the destruction of the BMW as part of the evidence associated with the charges against him. They assert that the axe was used to access the gas tank of the BMW, reinforcing the theory of consciousness of guilt in relation to the destruction of evidence.
The United States presents photographs in Exhibits 165 and 166 as evidence relevant to the case against Maynard Shirley and A. Williams, arguing for their admissibility based on four points: (i) to illustrate law enforcement's investigative steps and the rationale for examining certain items; (ii) to corroborate testimony regarding the presence and concealment of Elijah Shirley, Maynard Shirley, and A. Williams together; (iii) to show items removed from a BMW by the defendants before its incineration; and (iv) to demonstrate the items used to burn the vehicle, including lighter fluid and tools for print removal. Although the United States does not directly address Maynard Shirley’s objections to Exhibits 155 and 156, the arguments related to Exhibits 120-121 and 165-166 indirectly respond to those objections.
During a hearing on September 29, 2016, Maynard Shirley challenges the relevance of evidence concerning knives, asserting that such evidence falls under Rule 404(b) as propensity evidence and carries high prejudicial value. He argues that the presentation of knives could lead the jury to infer that he was involved in the stabbing of the victims, despite the knives not matching eyewitness descriptions of the weapon used. This reasoning emphasizes his concern that the evidence could mislead the jury regarding his character and involvement in the case.
Maynard Shirley's defense argued that his possession of knives does not imply guilt regarding the charged offense, as merely having knives is not indicative of his involvement. During the arrest, he was holding a knife, but his defense contended this does not imply consciousness of guilt. It was noted that there was no evidence he threatened officers with the knife; he was simply holding it, which the defense claimed is prejudicial without adding probative value relevant to guilt. The United States acknowledged it was not claiming the knives were used in the crime but argued they were relevant for demonstrating the thoroughness of the investigation. They asserted that Shirley’s possession of a knife at the time of arrest could indicate flight and consciousness of guilt. The Court expressed a tendency to exclude evidence of Shirley's past knife possession and a random assortment of knives found in his bags, agreeing with the defense that this evidence could be unfairly prejudicial. However, some photographs containing other relevant evidence, such as incendiary devices, might still be admissible if the knives were redacted. The United States raised concerns that excluding the knives would hinder its ability to showcase the investigation's thoroughness, highlighting expert testimony indicating the knives were forensically tested without any links to the stabbings of the victims.
The United States expressed concern that failing to address certain evidence at trial could result in Maynard Shirley claiming that exculpatory evidence was improperly withheld from the jury. The Court shared this concern, emphasizing the importance of the United States not being prejudiced by suggestions of an incomplete investigation. As a compromise, the United States agreed to exclude certain evidence categories from trial, and in return, Maynard Shirley committed not to challenge the thoroughness of the United States' investigation regarding knives or argue that the forensic testing's exculpatory findings should have been presented to the jury.
Regarding the evidence related to a Bear Gryllis Gerber Knife that Maynard Shirley allegedly held at his arrest, the Court deemed it prejudicial without independent probative value and decided to exclude it. In relation to a Bear Gryllis Gerber Axe found in Maynard Shirley's possession, he contended that there was no evidence linking the axe to the destruction of a BMW's backseat for arson purposes. The United States asserted it would call witnesses to testify about Maynard Shirley's use of the axe in the vehicle's destruction and referenced accelerants found near the BMW and in the belongings of both Maynard Shirley and A. Williams, which they argued indicated consciousness of guilt.
Although the United States acknowledged it lacked a witness to directly connect the axe to the incident, it argued that no other axes were present at the scene. Maynard Shirley countered that the distinctive features of the axe, such as its orange logo, would be recognizable to a witness who saw it used.
Maynard Shirley contended that there was insufficient evidence linking an ax to the destruction of a car, arguing that the ax's prejudicial value was evident. The Court, agreeing with the United States, decided to admit the ax as evidence, reasoning that sufficient links existed once witnesses testified that Shirley had used the ax on the BMW. The Court noted the unique nature of axes compared to knives, suggesting that Shirley's objection pertained to the weight of the evidence rather than admissibility.
On October 12, 2016, Shirley filed a notice of objection to specific photographs of knives he believed should be excluded based on the Court's prior rulings. He identified eight exhibits, including various Bear Gryllis Gerber Knives and items related to his assault and identity theft conviction.
In response, the United States agreed with Shirley's objections regarding the inadmissibility of the knife exhibits, affirming their exclusion. The document also outlines the legal framework regarding the relevancy of evidence, stating that relevant evidence is admissible if it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable, while irrelevant evidence is inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402.
Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible in court. Under Rule 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or presenting cumulative evidence. The trial court must evaluate the evidence's probative value against its potential for unfair prejudice, as established in cases like United States v. Record and United States v. Pettigrew. The Tenth Circuit emphasizes that the exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence under Rule 403 should be rare. The trial court has broad discretion to balance probative value and potential unfair prejudice, as noted in various rulings, including those by the Supreme Court, which acknowledges the district court's familiarity with case specifics. Evidence may be deemed unfairly prejudicial if it provokes emotional reactions from the jury or negatively influences their perception of the case. However, damaging a party's case does not inherently make evidence unfairly prejudicial; it must suggest a decision based on an improper basis. Additionally, Rule 404(b) prohibits using evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove a person's character for the purpose of showing conformity with that character.
Evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts is generally inadmissible to demonstrate a person's character for the purpose of suggesting that they acted in accordance with that character on a specific occasion. However, such evidence may be permitted for other reasons, including establishing motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or to show the absence of mistake or accident. In criminal cases, if a defendant requests, prosecutors must provide reasonable pretrial notice of the nature of any such evidence they plan to present, unless the court allows notice during trial for good cause.
The inadmissibility rule aims to prevent the jury from convicting a defendant based on character rather than evidence of the crime charged. A four-part test is used to determine the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b): (1) the evidence must serve a proper purpose; (2) it must be relevant; (3) the trial court must assess whether its probative value outweighs potential unfair prejudice; and (4) the jury should be instructed to consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was admitted.
The rule stems from a common-law principle safeguarding defendants from convictions based on character evidence. It addresses concerns that juries may convict individuals based on prior misdeeds rather than the specific crime at hand and may infer guilt from past behavior. While evidence for proper purposes can be admitted even if it might suggest criminal propensity, care must be taken to ensure it is relevant and not unduly prejudicial.
Rule 404(b) governs the admissibility of evidence regarding prior bad acts, emphasizing that such evidence is typically considered propensity evidence, necessitating limiting instructions. To be admissible, the proponent must clearly demonstrate how the evidence connects to logical inferences, excluding any inference that the defendant has a propensity for the bad act. District courts are required to specify the permissible purpose for which the evidence is offered and the inferences drawn. A general reference to Rule 404(b) is insufficient. The evidentiary hypothesis must be articulated precisely, and the applicability of Rules 401 to 403 and conditional relevancy under Rule 104(b) must be adhered to.
The Tenth Circuit acknowledges the probative value of uncharged acts to establish motive, intent, or knowledge, provided these acts are similar to the charged crime and occur close in time. The trial court's discretion in determining the admissibility based on similarity and timing will not be overturned without evidence of abuse. While the uncharged act must be similar to the charged offense, it does not need to be identical. A greater degree of similarity is necessary when the evidence is intended to prove identity rather than state of mind. In a specific case, evidence of a prior DWI conviction was excluded in a second-degree murder trial, illustrating the careful consideration required in these determinations.
The murder charge against the defendant stemmed from an incident where he, while intoxicated, struck a motorcyclist with his vehicle. Judge Hansen determined that evidence of the defendant's prior convictions would only indicate a propensity for drunk driving and would be more prejudicial than probative. However, the Tenth Circuit reversed this decision, asserting that the prior convictions were relevant to proving malice or intent, which are necessary elements of second-degree murder. The court reasoned that a person convicted of drunk driving is more aware of the risks posed to others.
In a related case, United States v. Rodella, the former Sheriff of Rio Arriba County faced charges for unlawfully arresting a motorist. The prosecution presented evidence of three similar prior incidents where Rodella had engaged in threatening behavior while in civilian clothes. The court admitted this evidence, highlighting the similarities to the charged crime and its relevance in establishing whether Rodella acted willfully. The court also mandated specific statements in the prosecution's closing argument and offered a limiting instruction to prevent the jury from using the evidence solely for propensity purposes.
Rodella appealed, contending that the 404(b) evidence compelled the jury to make propensity-based inferences to conclude he acted willfully. The Tenth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, stating that the jury could infer Rodella’s willfulness without relying on propensity, as prior conduct suggested he was aware of his actions and their implications. This inference aligned with the principle that prior similar acts reduce the likelihood of innocent intent in the charged offense.
The Tenth Circuit held that the potential prejudice of certain evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value in the case against Rodella. The court noted that Rodella's claim regarding the emotional impact of witness testimonies was unfounded, as his actions towards Tafoya were deemed more severe than those in three other incidents. In contrast, in United States v. Chapman, the court excluded evidence of the defendant’s past domestic violence actions, finding that such evidence was relevant only for propensity and posed a significant risk of unfair prejudice. The court dismissed the prosecution's arguments that the evidence was necessary to rebut a self-defense claim and to establish motive, stating that any inference drawn from past anger could mislead the jury. Moreover, the incidents cited in Chapman were not sufficiently similar or closely timed to the charged crime. Conversely, in United States v. Ballou, the court allowed some evidence of prior hostile encounters involving the victim and hospital staff to demonstrate the nurse's state of mind and belief regarding the force used, while excluding most documents based on hearsay.
In *Leon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.*, 313 F.R.D. 615 (D.N.M. 2016), the Court ruled that prior-act evidence was admissible as it was not intended for the conduct-in-conformity inference prohibited by Rule 404(b). Although the evidence had a propensity effect, its admissibility was upheld because it was offered for other purposes. The Tenth Circuit clarified that evidence of other crimes can be admissible as res gestae, meaning it is integral to the proof of the charged offense. This is further supported by the Sixth Circuit's definition of res gestae as acts closely related to the charged offense, crucial for completing its narrative. The Tenth Circuit permits res gestae evidence that provides context, is necessary for a comprehensive case presentation, or completes the crime's story. Examples include *Wilson v. Jara*, where a plaintiff's actions during an arrest were deemed res gestae as they contextualized the incident, and *United States v. Ganadonegro*, where evidence concerning a defendant's complaints about a crying infant was considered background information relevant to the case. The evidence in question was characterized as background or res gestae, distinct from Rule 404(b) evidence.
The Court admitted evidence regarding the context of an alleged rape and kidnapping, which stemmed from a dispute between the defendant, Maynard Shirley, and the victim over their children. This dispute escalated into violence, leading to the charged offenses. The Court noted that this evidence provided a necessary context with causal, spatial, and temporal connections to the charges.
Maynard Shirley objected to three categories of evidence proposed by the United States: (i) his past and current possession of knives unrelated to the offenses, (ii) a Bear Gryllis Gerber Knife allegedly held at his arrest, and (iii) a Bear Gryllis Gerber Axe found in his belongings post-arrest. The Court ruled to exclude evidence from categories (i) and (ii) due to their substantial risk of unfair prejudice outweighing their limited probative value, as these knives were not used in the alleged offenses. However, the Court permitted the admission of the Bear Gryllis Gerber Axe, determining it was more probative than prejudicial.
The United States sought to introduce evidence of Shirley's prior possession of knives and pocketknives found after his arrest as circumstantial evidence suggesting his access to knives for use in the alleged offenses. Shirley countered that such evidence was inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, and 404, asserting they were irrelevant to the charged offenses. The Court emphasized that relevant evidence, which tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable, is admissible, while irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.
The standard for relevancy under the Federal Rules of Evidence is intentionally broad to avoid impracticality. In the case of United States v. Ganadonegro, the court determined that the proffered evidence, despite its tenuous relevance, still qualifies as relevant. The evidence, described as a “random collection of knives,” does not directly correlate with the specific knife used in the charged offense. However, the court acknowledged that Maynard Shirley's ownership of various knives suggests familiarity with weapons, which carries some probative value. This value, though diminished by the knives’ lack of direct relation to the offense, is not considered zero since it may indicate access to similar weapons.
Additionally, the court noted that the possession of these knives is pertinent to the thoroughness of the investigation, highlighting that expert testimony will confirm no forensic evidence links the knives to the stabbings in question. Although these test results are relevant and potentially exculpatory, their probative value is further reduced because Shirley has agreed not to challenge the thoroughness of the investigation or argue the exclusion of the knives in trial. Consequently, while the knives are relevant to demonstrate the investigation's thoroughness, their evidentiary impact is minimal due to the stipulation made by Shirley. The court concluded that not all relevant evidence is admissible under the law.
A court may exclude relevant evidence under Rule 403 if its probative value is significantly outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, defined as evidence that could lead to decisions based on improper emotional grounds. Under Rule 404, propensity evidence—evidence of uncharged acts used to suggest a person's character—can lead to impermissible inferences, such as concluding that a person’s past behavior indicates they likely committed a similar act in the present case. The Tenth Circuit emphasizes caution in admitting such evidence due to its potential for unfair prejudice. In this case, the United States argues that evidence of Maynard Shirley’s possession of knives demonstrates his familiarity with the type of weapon involved in the alleged offense. However, this evidence risks suggesting that Shirley's knife possession indicates a propensity to use knives, leading to a forbidden inference regarding guilt. This inference is not allowed under Rule 404, as established in case law, and the unfair prejudice from this inference outweighs any minimal probative value of the evidence. Additionally, the argument that Shirley’s knife possession is central to the charged offenses does not hold, as evidence of unrelated, uncharged acts can only be admitted as res gestae if they are inextricably intertwined with the offense in question.
The Tenth Circuit allows the admission of evidence regarding uncharged acts if it provides context for the alleged crime or is necessary for a complete case presentation. In the case of Maynard Shirley, the United States can present a narrative of his alleged flight and destruction of evidence without referencing his unrelated knife collection. The Court ruled to exclude trial testimony about Shirley's past knife possession and any pocketknives found after his arrest, as they are not "inextricably intertwined" with the charged offense. However, photographs containing pocketknives may be admitted if the knives can be redacted, as they also depict other relevant items like incendiary devices.
Additionally, the Court will exclude evidence that Shirley had a knife at the time of his arrest. While the United States argues that this evidence demonstrates his access to weapons and consciousness of guilt, Shirley contends that its probative value is outweighed by potential prejudice. The Court must assess the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b) through a four-part inquiry, determining if the evidence serves a proper purpose.
Evidence is admissible if it meets certain criteria: it must be relevant under Rule 401, its potential for unfair prejudice must not substantially outweigh its probative value, and if requested by the defendant, the court must provide a limiting instruction under Rule 105. Proper purposes for admission of evidence include proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, as per Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1). However, Rule 404(b)(1) prohibits using uncharged acts to establish criminal propensity.
The United States asserts that Maynard Shirley's possession of a knife at the time of his arrest is relevant to demonstrate his access to and ability to produce knives used in the offense, arguing that sharp objects were involved. This rationale is deemed improper as it implies criminal propensity, suggesting Shirley is predisposed to use knives and therefore likely used a knife in the crime. The case law reinforces that evidence must establish a logical connection without inferring propensity.
While access to a weapon can be a proper purpose under Rule 404(b), it requires demonstrating sufficient similarity in conduct and closeness in time for the evidence to be probative. In this instance, the context does not support the inference of probative value because everyone has access to knives, and the knife Shirley was found with does not resemble the weapon allegedly used in the crime.
Furthermore, the United States argues that evidence of Shirley concealing himself with a knife during his arrest indicates consciousness of guilt and flight from law enforcement, which has been recognized as relevant in previous rulings.
Flight can be interpreted as an admission of guilt, as established in United States v. Martinez. Evidence of such conduct is admissible under rule 404(b) if it logically suggests guilt. Courts often use a four-part test to determine the probative value of flight evidence, including inferences from behavior to flight, flight to consciousness of guilt, guilt concerning the charged crime, and actual guilt. The Tenth Circuit emphasizes the importance of considering the overall facts. Strong inferences of guilt bolster the presumption of admissibility for evidence of admission by conduct.
In the case of Maynard Shirley, evidence of his flight and possession of a knife indicates consciousness of guilt. This behavior does not reflect normal travel but suggests he acted with a guilty conscience. His concealment while armed is relevant under rule 401, supporting the inference of his involvement in the charged offense on March 21, 2015. The possession of a "survivalist" knife and additional survival gear further implies preparation for prolonged evasion. The court must determine if the evidence's potential for unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value under rule 403.
The Court analyzed the admissibility of evidence under Rule 403 and Rule 404(b) regarding Maynard Shirley’s alleged possession of a knife during his arrest. It determined that while the evidence of the knife is relevant, it is substantially more prejudicial than probative. The Court noted that the knife adds little to the inference of guilt already established by evidence of Shirley's concealment from authorities. Additionally, there were no allegations that he threatened or used the knife against arresting officers, further diminishing its probative value. Although the knife might indicate survivalist intentions, similar conclusions could be drawn from other evidence, such as his backpack.
The Court expressed concern that introducing the knife could lead the jury to perceive Shirley as having a violent nature, which would unfairly prejudice him. The United States failed to provide a compelling distinction between the probative value of the knife and the evidence of Shirley’s concealment. Consequently, the Court decided to exclude the knife evidence but allowed evidence of Shirley hiding during the arrest.
The United States asserted that the knife was admissible as res gestae evidence, integral to the charged crime. The Court acknowledged that the Tenth Circuit permits the admission of uncharged acts under a res gestae theory when they are essential to the case. However, it reiterated that Rule 404(b) applies only to extrinsic acts, not intrinsic ones, which do not require the same level of scrutiny. Evidence must be inextricably intertwined with the charged offense to qualify as intrinsic.
The Tenth Circuit's standard for admissibility of evidence involving uncharged acts requires that such evidence must provide context for the crime or be necessary for a full case presentation. The United States argued that the circumstances surrounding a defendant’s arrest are inextricably linked to the crime, referencing United States v. McVeigh. However, the court found that the United States' reliance on McVeigh was misplaced, as the case did not support their position regarding the arrest circumstances. Specifically, hiding days after the alleged crime in a different location was not considered inextricably intertwined with the evidence of the crime.
Additionally, the evidence of a knife seized during the arrest was deemed unnecessary for a complete narrative of the crime, as the prosecution could adequately present the case without it. Although res gestae evidence is exempt from Rule 404(b), it is still subject to Rule 403, which assesses the risk of unfair prejudice against its probative value. The United States failed to demonstrate that the knife's evidence provided unique probative value beyond what was already established by other evidence of flight and concealment. Hence, the court determined that the potential for unfair prejudice significantly outweighed any probative value of the knife evidence. Consequently, the court granted Maynard Shirley's request to exclude evidence related to the knife and its associated exhibits.
The court will admit evidence regarding Maynard Shirley's possession of a Bear Gryllis Gerber Axe, which was found in his belongings after his arrest. The United States claims that Shirley used this axe to destroy his white BMW by hacking into the back seat to access the gas tank and ignite the vehicle. They argue this evidence demonstrates his participation in the destruction of evidence and indicates consciousness of guilt.
Maynard Shirley contends that the axe's relevance is marginal and that its probative value is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The court references Rule 401, which states that evidence is relevant if it makes a fact more or less probable and is consequential to the case. The court finds that possession of the axe increases the likelihood that it was used in the BMW's destruction, thus making it a relevant fact in the case.
Shirley further argues the axe is irrelevant due to the lack of direct links to the vehicle's destruction and the absence of incendiary materials or tool marks. However, the court finds this argument unconvincing, noting that possession of an axe is distinctive compared to more common items like knives. Since no other individuals related to the case possessed an axe, its presence in Shirley's belongings is considered significantly probative of his actions.
Maynard Shirley's claims are countered by the United States, which presents evidence linking the destruction of a BMW to an axe found in his possession. Witnesses are prepared to testify about Shirley's use of the axe during the BMW's destruction, alongside evidence of accelerants discovered near the burned vehicle and within Shirley's belongings. The Court finds a sufficient connection between the axe and the BMW, establishing the axe's relevance under Rule 401. The Court then evaluates whether the axe's evidence serves a legitimate purpose under Rule 404(b), concluding that it indicates Shirley's "consciousness of guilt."
Spoliation, defined as the intentional destruction of evidence unfavorable to the destroyer, is recognized as admissible to demonstrate consciousness of guilt, despite not being explicitly listed under Rule 404(b). The United States argues that the axe signifies Shirley's intent to eliminate evidence related to an incident on March 21, 2015, thus supporting the notion of guilt. In contrast, Shirley argues for the exclusion of the axe's evidence, claiming that its probative value does not outweigh the potential for unfair prejudice, as it might mislead the jury into improperly inferring connections to the charged offenses. He contends that evidence of "consciousness of guilt" is only marginally relevant to determining if he committed the alleged crime and poses a risk of bias.
The Court finds that the evidence of the axe used to destroy Maynard Shirley's BMW is significantly probative regarding his consciousness of guilt. The Court distinguishes the case from United States v. Johnson, emphasizing that the Tenth Circuit does not require a complex analysis if the overall facts suggest a strong inference of guilt. Witness testimony indicates that the Shirley brothers drove away from the scene in a white BMW and later made statements implying defiance against law enforcement. Following their relatives' visit, they damaged and set fire to the BMW, and an axe was found among Maynard Shirley's belongings upon his arrest. These actions collectively imply that his guilt motivated the destruction of the vehicle.
The Court also assesses the risk of unfair prejudice associated with admitting evidence of the axe. It clarifies that unfair prejudice refers to evidence that could lead to improper decision-making, not simply evidence that may disadvantage the defendant. The Court does not find a significant risk that the jury would improperly infer possession of a knife based on the presence of the axe, as the prosecution alleges a banana-shaped knife was used in the crime, and the defense provides no rationale for such an inference.
Maynard Shirley can request the Court to provide a limiting instruction under rule 105 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, allowing the jury to consider evidence of the Bear Gryllis Gerber Axe solely for its relevance to the BMW’s destruction and Shirley’s consciousness of guilt, rather than as evidence of his possession of a knife or use of the axe in the alleged murder. The Court finds the evidence of the axe relevant and admissible, thus denying Shirley's request to exclude several exhibits, including the physical axe and items found in bags. However, any exhibit depicting knives must be redacted. The Court grants in part and denies in part Shirley's objections and motions regarding the exhibits. Specifically, it admits the axe exhibit and certain items found in bags, provided that any knives depicted are redacted. It excludes specific knife exhibits while permitting admission of documents related to Shirley’s prior convictions under the same redaction condition. The Court will maintain the variations in spelling of "axe" and "ax" as they appear in the parties' briefings but will use "axe" in its official text. All other requests regarding evidence of knives and the axe are denied. The final transcript of the hearing may differ slightly from the unedited version referenced.
At the Exhibit Hearing, Maynard Shirley’s attorney, Theresa Duncan, clarified that certain items are associated with Bear Grylls, a TV personality and survivalist. The Court noted discrepancies in the parties’ filings, specifically the incorrect reference to “Bear Gryllis” instead of “Bear Grylls,” and decided to maintain the error in the official Memorandum Opinion and Order for consistency. The United States categorized these discussions as responses to Maynard Shirley's objections regarding Exhibits 160-184. Initially, Shirley objected to all these exhibits but later limited his objections to Exhibits 165 and 166, which include photographs of the Bear Grylls Gerber Axe.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit clarified misconceptions about Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), stating that it does not solely establish a rule of exclusion for propensity evidence but recognizes permissible non-propensity uses of other-act evidence. The rule distinguishes between general and specific intent crimes in terms of admissibility of other-act evidence, with the Seventh Circuit treating evidence less favorably for general intent crimes unless intent is significantly challenged, while specific intent crimes automatically raise intent as an issue.
Exhibit 157 was incorrectly labeled, showing a pocket knife and identification documents rather than the alleged assault and identity theft conviction. Exhibits 163 and 164 depict various items, including the Bear Grylls Gerber Axe and pocket knives. Exhibits 121 and 120 have been withdrawn, but the Court addressed their admissibility to resolve disputes regarding the Bear Grylls Gerber Knife and Axe.
