## Facts

- Roland Demingo Queen was charged with conspiracy to tamper with a witness (18 U.S.C. § 371) and witness tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1)) based on conduct from February 1994 to March 1995.
- The government alleged Queen attempted to dissuade Feronica Isaacs from testifying in a federal drug-trafficking trial involving Stephen Hester.
- Trial evidence included Hester’s threatening conduct toward Isaacs, Queen’s menacing behavior toward witnesses during testimony, and a doorstep encounter where Queen allegedly threatened Isaacs, urged her not to testify, and attempted to bribe her.
- Before trial, the government sought to introduce evidence that in 1986, before Queen’s armed-robbery trial, he threatened prospective witnesses to prevent testimony.
- Two witnesses described the 1986 incidents: one testified Queen threatened to shoot him if he testified; another testified Queen threatened to “deal with” him for reporting Queen’s involvement.
- The district court denied Queen’s motion in limine and admitted the 1986 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent, finding under Rule 403 that the evidence was not unduly prejudicial.
- Queen was convicted and appealed, arguing the admission of the 1986 witness-tampering evidence was erroneous.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Queen’s 1986 witness-tampering threats under Rule 404(b) to prove intent in the charged § 1512(b)(1) offense.
2. Whether the district court should have excluded the prior-acts evidence under Rule 403 as unfairly prejudicial.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the 1986 threats were admissible under Rule 404(b) for the non-character purpose of proving intent.
- The court held the evidence satisfied Rule 403 because its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary rulings and rejected Queen’s remaining claims of error.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 404(b) permits prior-acts evidence for purposes other than character, including intent, if the evidence is relevant to that purpose, necessary or probative of an element, and sufficiently reliable.
- In evaluating Rule 404(b) evidence, courts examine similarity between the prior acts and the charged conduct and consider remoteness as part of the relevance and probative-value assessment.
- Rule 403 requires exclusion only when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; appellate review of this balancing is highly deferential to the trial court.
- In a § 1512(b)(1) prosecution, the government must prove the defendant acted knowingly and with intent to influence, delay, or prevent a witness’s testimony; prior similar threats to witnesses can be probative of that intent.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld the admission of evidence that Queen previously threatened witnesses in an earlier case, concluding it was properly used to prove intent under Rule 404(b) and was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403, and therefore affirmed his witness-tampering convictions.


United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997)