United States v. McGregor
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
960 F.3d 1319 (2020)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Surmondrea McGregor (defendant) pled guilty to attempted murder. As a condition of his release from prison, he was sentenced to four months’ probation. As conditions of his probation, he could not own a gun, and he was subject to home visits by his probation officer. During one such visit, the officer found a gun in a small closet. The officer also found evidence of identity theft in the same closet, including papers containing the personally identifiable information of other people. McGregor’s fingerprints were later found on those papers. Further, law enforcement found Snapchat pictures of McGregor holding the gun that was found. McGregor was charged with identity theft and being a felon in possession of a gun. McGregor’s defense regarding the identity-theft charge was that he shared the home and that the incriminating papers were not his. McGregor pled guilty to the gun charge and then objected to the introduction of the gun evidence in his identity-theft trial on the ground that its probative value was substantially outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (Rule 403). The district court overruled the objection and convicted McGregor of identity theft. McGregor appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marcus, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.