United States v. Lloyd
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
71 F.3d 1256 (1995)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
A federal jury convicted Willie Lloyd (defendant) of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Several law-enforcement officers testified that while police executed a search warrant at Lloyd’s apartment, Lloyd broke a window inside the apartment to throw a handgun outside. As police arrested Lloyd, Lloyd said, “You got me. My brothers should have been out there.” Police also arrested two teenagers, Shean Fisher and Che Williams, in Lloyd’s bedroom. Fisher testified that Lloyd was the chief of a gang faction called the Unknown Vice Lords, and Fisher and Williams were underlings positioned as Lloyd’s armed bodyguards on the night of Lloyd’s arrest. Officer Michael Cronin, who specialized in Chicago gangs, testified that Lloyd led the Unknown Vice Lords, regularly used gang members as security guards, and had survived at least two assassination attempts in the year before his arrest. The district court informed the jury that the jury could consider Cronin’s testimony only as context for Lloyd’s statement to police and Lloyd’s relationship to other people present during the search and as proof of Lloyd’s motive to possess a gun. Lloyd appealed from his conviction, arguing in part that the trial court had erred by admitting Cronin’s testimony because information about Lloyd’s gang activity was unduly prejudicial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Coffey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
