## Facts

- John W. Wilson participated in cocaine trafficking in southern Illinois.
- In August 1989, an Illinois State Police officer stopped and arrested Wilson and, during an inventory search of Wilson’s Nissan, found a loaded nine-millimeter handgun in the trunk.
- The gun was located on top of a duffle bag containing cocaine, a triple-beam scale, empty plastic baggies, and another small scale.
- That arrest led to a November 1989 conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm in relation to drug trafficking.
- While on bond pending sentencing for the possession conviction, Wilson was indicted (Jan. 24, 1990) for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, alleged to have occurred between Jan. 1, 1989 and Jan. 19, 1990.
- After Wilson’s co-defendants pleaded guilty, Wilson was tried alone and convicted by a jury (May 11, 1990) of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
- At the conspiracy trial, the government introduced testimony from a co-defendant and other participants in drug transactions with Wilson and also introduced the gun seized in August 1989.

## Issues

1. Whether Wilson preserved a Federal Rule of Evidence 403 objection to admission of the gun at trial and, if not, whether admission of the gun constituted plain error.
2. Whether the district court correctly applied the Sentencing Guidelines in determining Wilson’s sentence.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held Wilson did not preserve a Rule 403 objection because he objected only on relevance grounds at trial and did not argue unfair prejudice.
- Applying plain-error review, the court found no plain error in admitting the gun because it was probative of drug trafficking and tied to the charged conspiracy timeframe and conduct.
- The court affirmed Wilson’s conspiracy conviction.
- The court found error in the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines and remanded for resentencing.

## Legal Principles

- A relevance objection under Rule 401 does not, by itself, preserve a Rule 403 claim that probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; the objecting party must clearly raise unfair prejudice (or Rule 403) to preserve the issue.
- Unpreserved evidentiary objections are reviewed only for plain error, requiring an exceptionally serious mistake affecting the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.
- In drug-trafficking prosecutions, a firearm discovered in close proximity to drugs and distribution paraphernalia during the charged conspiracy period is generally relevant and probative evidence of trafficking activity.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Wilson’s drug-conspiracy conviction, holding that his trial objection on relevance did not preserve a Rule 403 unfair-prejudice claim and that admitting the gun was not plain error, but it remanded for resentencing because the Sentencing Guidelines were applied incorrectly.


United States v. Wilson, 966 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1992)