According to the government, the details Simpson provided about his involvement in uncharged drug deals were admissible because they arose out of "the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense." See United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, 985 (7th Cir.2006). We have upheld the admission of evidence under the intricately related evidence doctrine when the evidence was necessary to complete the story of a crime on trial.
United States v. McClinton, 135 F.3d 1178, 1186 (7th Cir.1998). “The decision whether to dismiss any or all jurors lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge,” and we will only reverse that decisionif “manifest injustice resulted from the judge's refusal to dismiss all of the jurors.” United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, 984 (7th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 479, 492 (7th Cir.1982)). Howard argues that the two juror notes, relaying the jurors' concern about Howard's note-taking during voir dire, indicate that the jury was afraid of Howard and thus prejudged him. Though Howard acknowledges that remedial measures were taken, he suggests that more should have been done, especially since one juror still seemed “angry” when asked about her note. He concedes that the jurors claimed to be impartial, but he contends that their actions suggested otherwise.
“[O]ur focus at this stage must be on the impartiality of the jury that actually sat, not on [the juror] who was struck.” United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, 984 (7th Cir.2006). See also United States v. Martinez–Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 313, 120 S.Ct. 774, 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000); Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 86, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988).
Because Mordi failed to object to the jury composition or to suggest more questions when given the opportunity to do so, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, 984 (7th Cir. 2006). But Mordi cannot even make it past the first prong of the familiar plain-error test, see id., because there was no error at all.
When a defendant has been charged with possession of a firearm by a felon, we repeatedly have held that evidence of contemporaneous uncharged drug trafficking is admissible under the "inextricably inter-twined" doctrine because such evidence tends to prove "knowing possession" of the firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, 985 (7th Cir.2006); United States v. Murray, 89 F.3d 459, 463 (7th Cir.1996). As we have explained, "drug trafficking supplies a motive for having [a] gun . . . [b]ecause weapons are `tools of the trade' of drug dealers."
The Court also notes that even if this claim had not been procedurally defaulted, Hazley's Sixth Amendment unbiased and impartial jury argument is without merit because the particular juror was excused prior to the start of the jury's deliberations and Hazley has not attempted to explain how the juror's contacts may have tainted the remainder of the jurors. See United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, 984 (7th Cir. 2006).
In fact, the Seventh Circuit has consistently affirmed the admission of contemporaneous uncharged drug activity in illegal firearm possession cases to show motive and knowing possession. See United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, 985 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Murray, 89 F.3d 459, 463 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Taylor, 728 F.2d 864, 872 (7th Cir. 1984). The Seventh Circuit has stated that "drug trafficking supplies a motive for having [a] gun . . . [b]ecause weapons are `tools of the trade' of drug dealers."
First, the payment to Defendant Kipnis is part of the "story of the crime," and thus admissible. See United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981, 985 (7th Cir. 2006) (act is inextricably intertwined if "it is necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial"). The evidence completes the "story" because it shows how Defendant Kipnis was compensated for his alleged actions. See United States v. Spaeni, 60 F.3d 313, 316 (7th Cir. 1995).
The Seventh Circuit has held that "evidence of uncharged criminal activity is not considered `other crimes' evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) if it arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, if it is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, or if it is necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." United States v. Lott, 2006 WL 760160 (7th Cir. March 27, 2006) ( quoting United States v. Roberts, 933 F.2d 517, 520 (7th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also United States v. Akinrinade, 61 F.3d 1279, 1285-86 (7th Cir. 1995) (referring to this as the "intricately related" doctrine).