United States v. Weaver
In United States v. Weaver, No. 24-60252 (5th Cir. Mar. 6, 2025) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction for forcibly assaulting a postal carrier with a deadly weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b).
Background: Weaver was indicted based on a confrontation between him and a USPS mailman. Weaver drove up to the mail truck and blocked it in, then he stepped out and asked about a missing package. Weaver then claimed to know where the mailman and his boss lived. When the mailman attempted to leave, Weaver stopped him. Weaver and other people in the car pointed guns at the mailman, and Waver said, “This is what we shooting.” At that point, the mailman was able to drive away.
After he was charged, Weaver moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the Government had presented non-credible, contradictory testimony to the grand jury. The district court denied that motion, and Weaver proceeded to trial. The jury convicted Weaver, and the district court sentenced him to spend 240 months in prison.
Issue 1: Should the district court have dismissed the indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury? Held: No.
Before the grand jury, a postal inspector had testified, and Weaver claimed the inspector had made contradictory statements. The Fifth Circuit held that any discrepancies were immaterial and did not “substantially influence” the grand jury’s decision to return an indictment.
The postal inspector had also speculated about why Weaver might have confronted the mailman, suggesting that it might have been because the missing package contained drugs. The inspector also “testified to Weaver’s character and propensity for committing crimes similar to the incident.” The Government, however, was “careful” when it addressed those issues, and the Fifth Circuit was not “left with grave doubt that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of such violations” (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Issue 2: Did the district court err by admitting evidence of Weaver’s prior drug convictions under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)? Held: No.
The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusion that Weaver’s convictions were “relevant because they showed motive and were not unduly prejudicial.” Weaver objected that his current charge was not similar to his drug convictions, so the latter should not have been admitted to show motive to commit the former. Both courts rejected that claim because the drug convictions were “relevant to motive because they help establish why Weaver might commit the offense, as threatening a postal worker is not a typical response to a delayed package.”
Weaver also argued that the convictions were not very probative due to their age—he was convicted of those crimes 3 and 11 years, respectively, before the alleged assault. Although the passing of time can diminish the probative value of an extrinsic act, “the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this conviction when considering the Government’s high need for evidence.”
Weaver also complained that the Government had called him a “drug dealer” during the trial. The Fifth Circuit found two such references—one during cross-examination and one in closing argument—but it deemed those references harmless given “the amount of evidence presented relevant to the elements of the crime at issue.”
Issue 3: Was the district court wrong to prevent Weaver from cross-examining the mailman with an investigator’s report that summarized what the mailman previously said to law enforcement? Held: No.
The report contained only a third party’s summary of the mailman’s statements, and “a statement by someone other than the witness cannot be considered a ‘prior statement’ of the witness” (citing Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)). Even if Weaver had shown the report to the mailman and the mailman had adopted it, the report’s statements would still have been inadmissible, so the court did not err in precluding Weaver from questioning the mailman about the report.
Note: The Fifth Circuit also rejected Weaver’s argument that he should have received a judgment of acquittal and that the district court had erred by giving the deadlocked jury an Allen charge.