## Facts

- Arzell Gulley and Daryl Brown were federal inmates at USP Beaumont in Texas.
- During an evening period when inmates could move about the compound, Gulley and another inmate argued with Brown.
- Evidence at trial indicated Brown was chased into a cell, where he was fatally stabbed.
- The government alleged Gulley committed the murder or aided and abetted it and possessed a prison-made weapon.
- Gulley argued self-defense and contended Brown was the first aggressor, asserting Brown was violent and was armed with a knife immediately before the altercation.
- Before trial, the district court limited evidence of Brown’s specific prior violent acts, permitting only evidence that Brown had a knife before the altercation and reputation/opinion testimony about Brown’s violent character.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Gulley’s convictions for murder (and aiding and abetting) and possession of a dangerous weapon in a federal prison.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding most evidence of the victim’s specific prior acts of violence offered to support a self-defense/first-aggressor theory.
3. Whether the district court erred by refusing to conduct an in camera hearing on alleged due-process violations from pre-indictment delay.
4. Whether Gulley established ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
5. Whether Gulley’s absence during the court’s instruction directing the jury to continue deliberations violated his right to be present and required reversal.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions and life sentence.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permitted a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.
- The court held the evidentiary limits on victim prior-acts evidence were within the district court’s discretion because Gulley lacked contemporaneous knowledge of the excluded acts and the court allowed alternative character evidence and the knife evidence.
- The court held Gulley did not make the required threshold showing for relief (or an in camera hearing) based on pre-indictment delay.
- The court declined to grant relief for ineffective assistance because the record was insufficiently developed to evaluate the claims on direct appeal.
- The court held any error from the jury-related instruction given outside Gulley’s presence was harmless.

## Legal Principles

- Sufficiency review requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asking whether any rational factfinder could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt; credibility determinations and conflict resolution are for the jury.
- In a self-defense case, evidence of a victim’s violent character is generally admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(2) through reputation or opinion testimony; the trial court retains discretion to limit specific-acts evidence.
- A trial court may exclude evidence of a victim’s specific prior violent acts that were unknown to the defendant at the time of the incident, particularly where the evidence is offered to justify the defendant’s state of mind and where exclusion reduces confusion and delay.
- A due-process challenge based on pre-indictment delay requires proof of (1) actual prejudice to the defense and (2) delay undertaken in bad faith to gain a tactical advantage; speculative prejudice is insufficient.
- Ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily not resolved on direct appeal absent a record adequate to assess counsel’s performance and prejudice under Strickland.
- A defendant’s right to be present at critical trial stages may be subject to harmless-error analysis when the jury communication does not introduce new law, coerce deliberations, or prejudice the defense.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld Gulley’s prison murder and weapon convictions, concluding the evidence supported the verdict and that the district court committed no reversible error in limiting victim prior-acts evidence, rejecting a pre-indictment delay claim, declining to resolve ineffective assistance on an undeveloped record, and treating the jury-instruction absence issue as harmless.


United States v. Gulley, 526 F.3d 809 (5th Cir. 2008)