Appeals court tosses Jenkins drug, gun conviction

Johnny Jenkins, 34, was sentenced Feb. 6, 2008, to 15 years in a federal prison. A U.S. District Court jury in Memphis found him guilty on three counts of selling, distributing or dispensing a controlled substance, and one count each of carrying and using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

He appealed the conviction to the appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio, questioning whether the evidence was enough to prove him guilty.

Dyersburg Police arrested Jenkins on July 3, 2006, after executing a search warrant at 1217 Fair St. Police found 22.4 grams of crack cocaine, 374.4 grams of powder cocaine, 1.9 kilograms of marijuana, drug paraphernalia, body armor, more than $13,000 cash, three pistols, a rifle and two shotguns. Many of the weapons were loaded. Most of the items were found in plain view on tables and bookshelves throughout the house.

Jenkins and three other men were in the yard when police arrived. In a summary of the case, the appeals court ruling stated that Jenkins' father was the caretaker of the house, but several people had free access to the house. Johnny Jenkins said he lived there part-time; his driver's license, pay stubs, bank cards and work identification badge were found inside the only bedroom.

"Whether he (as opposed to someone else) constructively possessed the guns and drugs in the house was the principal issue at trial," the appeals court stated in its Feb. 9 opinion. Jenkins reportedly had restored electrical service for the house four times between July 1998 and April 2005.

In his first basis for appeal, Jenkins claimed the government had failed to prove he "had custody and control" of the guns and drugs. The appeals court disagreed. The court's ruling said: "This evidence easily permitted the jury to find that Jenkins had the power and intention to exercise control over the guns and drugs in the house."

In his second basis for appeal, Jenkins argued that Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Lee DeArmitt should not have been allowed to testify as an expert on drug-dealer customs without first questioning his basis of knowledge. The appeals court noted that DeArmitt testified he had "surveilled drug transactions 300-400 times, participated in the execution of search warrants in 50-100 drug cases, and been involved in the arrests of several hundred suspected drug dealers."

In his third and final basis for appeal, Jenkins argued that the trial court should not have allowed the prosecutor to present evidence of Jenkins' 1998 conviction of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. That conviction also stemmed from an arrest at 1217 Fair St.

According to federal rules of evidence, prior convictions may be used to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan and knowledge, but not to prove a person's character.

The prior conviction, the prosecution stated, showed that Jenkins knowingly possessed the drugs at the same address with the same intent. Jenkins maintained that it merely showed a propensity for selling drugs and possessing weapons. The trial court determined "the unfair prejudice appears to be outweighed in this case by the probative value of the evidence."

The appeals court disagreed.

"Even if we assume for purposes of argument that evidence of Jenkins' prior conviction had some probative value, that value is microscopic at best. And that value becomes invisible to the naked eye when the evidence is thrown in with the rest of the evidence in the case," the appeals court said.

Previous court rulings on the question of unfair prejudice lean on the availability of other means of proof. "Even the government argues - in suggesting that any error in the admission of the prior-conviction evidence was harmless - that its 'other evidence of knowledge and intent to distribute in this case was overwhelming.' That amounts to a concession that the admission of this evidence, for this purpose, was merely piling on.

"Even when properly instructed to consider the evidence only for some legitimate purpose - as the jury was instructed here - the danger is obvious that the jury will treat it as propensity evidence instead. Under the facts presented here, we are firmly convinced that the prejudicial effect of Jenkins' prior conviction substantially outweighed its probative value. The admission of that evidence was error."

The appeals court sent the case back to the U.S. District Court in Memphis for a new trial. Jenkins' next appearance in district court had not been scheduled as of Wednesday evening.