## Facts

- In May 1988, three plainclothes Chicago police officers made two curbside purchases of “crack” cocaine from a street seller who handed the drugs through the window of an unmarked police car.
- The transactions occurred a few blocks from Hyde Park and within 1,000 feet of a school.
- The officers later identified the seller as Stanley Wright from police photographs and again identified him at trial.
- Police did not arrest Wright immediately. About six months later, with court authorization, officers placed a wiretap on Wright’s telephone line.
- The wiretap intercepted a recorded conversation in which Wright bragged about being a drug dealer and referred to other drug activity, but did not discuss the specific undercover sales charged in the case.
- Wright was charged with two counts of distributing cocaine and two counts of distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 845a (now § 860)).
- Over Wright’s objection, the trial judge allowed the government to play portions of the recorded call to the jury, stating it was admitted not to show character or propensity, but to show identity and intent.
- The jury convicted Wright on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to seven years in prison.
- Wright appealed, challenging (1) the sufficiency of the identification evidence and (2) the admission of the recorded call under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright was the person who sold crack cocaine to the undercover officers.
2. Whether admitting the wiretap recording referencing other drug dealing violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (and Rule 403), where the call did not concern the charged sales and was offered as proof of “identity” and “intent.”

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Wright’s convictions and sentence.
- The court rejected the sufficiency challenge, holding that the officers’ identifications were enough for a rational jury to convict, despite discrepancies in estimates of the seller’s height and weight.
- The court concluded the tape’s admission as “other acts” evidence to prove “identity” or “intent” was not properly justified on the record because those theories risked serving as a proxy for propensity.
- Any error in admitting the recorded call did not warrant reversal given the strength of the eyewitness identification evidence and the limited added value of the tape on the charged sales.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) bars using “other acts” evidence to argue that a defendant has a criminal character and therefore likely committed the charged offense.
- “Other acts” evidence must be connected to a legitimate, non-propensity purpose that is genuinely in dispute (such as intent, identity, knowledge, or absence of mistake); labeling the purpose “identity” cannot be a substitute for arguing “he did it.”
- Even when evidence fits a listed 404(b) purpose, Rule 403 requires excluding it if the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.
- A conviction may be affirmed despite an evidentiary mistake if the appellate court concludes the error did not affect the verdict in light of the trial record as a whole.

## Conclusion

United States v. Wright, 901 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1990), affirmed a crack-distribution and school-zone conviction based largely on multiple officer identifications, holding that discrepancies in physical descriptions did not defeat the jury’s finding. The court viewed the government’s use of a wiretap call about other drug dealing as an improper Rule 404(b) use when framed as “identity” or “intent,” but affirmed because the proof of guilt was strong enough that any evidentiary error did not justify a new trial.


United States v. Wright, 901 F.2d 68 (1990)