Judge Biggers is going to allow the government to use other crime evidence. Here is the heart of his ruling:
The 404(b) evidence reveals (1) the employing of a person not an attorney of record to approach a state court judge (2) with intent to corrupt the state court judge in regard to (3) a fee dispute (4) involving two of the defendants herein as well as two others who have already entered guilty pleas in the case– all substantially the same elements as charged in the conspiracy count before the court in the present case.
The order also notes that Zach Scruggs (but not Sidney Backstrom) is implicated in the evidence. You can read the order here.
I understand Rule 404(b), but I have trouble reconciling with due process the concept that it is permissible to introduce evidence of a crime with which the defendant has not been charged, much less convicted by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, to prove intent to commit the crime actually charged. It seems to me that, in such circumstances, the government should be required to charge and prove both offenses or say nothing of the uncharged offense. But then, I’m an actual constitutional strict constructionist, not just one who claims to be when it sounds popular.
The due process concept of notice is covered by the requirement that the government has to provide advance written notice that it intends to used 404 evidence. I’ll have to think a bit about your qualms beyond that point.
somslawyer – Do you practice criminal law?
NMC: I’m talking about the due process concept of requiring proof of criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems to me that allowing evidence of other crimes to “pile on” the defendant violates this concept.
observer: no, which may explain my ignorance.
All of the foregoing aside, it appears the U.S. of A. has more than enough evidence to put Dickie and co. under the jail without dragging other crimes into the mix.