United States v. Brandon Edelman

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedFebruary 8, 2021
Docket20-1001
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Brandon Edelman (United States v. Brandon Edelman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Brandon Edelman, (7th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 5, 2021 Decided February 8, 2021

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 20-1001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.

v. No. 3:18CR68-001

BRANDON EDELMAN, Robert L. Miller, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Judge.

ORDER

A federal grand jury indicted Brandon Edelman on charges of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a); possession of a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and possession of a firearm as a felon, see id. § 922(g)(1). He testified at trial that the drugs and gun found by police officers belonged to his girlfriend, Rachel McCoy. Nevertheless, a jury found Edelman guilty of all three offenses. He appeals, but his appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Edelman did not respond to counsel’s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). Counsel’s brief appears thorough; it explains the nature of the case and the issues that an appeal of this No. 20-1001 Page 2

kind might be expected to involve. We therefore limit our review to the subjects that counsel discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014).

I. Background

Edelman was driving through South Bend, Indiana on April 27, 2018, when local police officers attempted a traffic stop. At first Edelman stopped, but he then accelerated and led the officers on a high-speed chase. During the chase, McCoy, who was sitting in the passenger’s seat, threw a gun, a bag that contained 113.4 grams of methamphetamine, and $20,000 in cash out of her window. When the police arrested Edelman, they found another bag of methamphetamine in his pocket. That bag weighed 9.45 grams at the scene, but when tested at a state lab, the drugs weighed 8.18 grams.

Later that day, officers interviewed Edelman. He told them what McCoy had thrown out the window, and officers later found the gun, drugs, and cash along the route of the chase. Edelman also said that he was a “heavy hitter in the ice [(crystal methamphetamine)] game,” and that he had been buying and selling the drug on April 26 and April 27. Finally, Edelman admitted to owning the gun, explaining that he got it after being robbed of drug proceeds a few weeks before.

II. Analysis

A. Evidentiary Rulings

Counsel first proposes arguing that the district court erred by admitting into evidence the bag of methamphetamine found on Edelman and ten video excerpts from his interview with police. Edelman preserved these objections by moving to exclude the evidence and objecting to its admission at trial. We would review the evidentiary decisions for abuse of discretion. United States v. Quiroz, 874 F.3d 562, 569 (7th Cir. 2017).

Counsel rightly concludes that it would be frivolous to challenge the admission of the bag of methamphetamine. At trial, Edelman argued that the difference in the weight taken at the scene (9.45 grams) and the lab (8.18 grams) proved that the bag presented was not the one police took from him. But the government’s witnesses explained that the drugs had been weighed in the bag at the scene, and without it at the lab. The government also established through chain-of-custody evidence that the bag was in the same condition as when it was taken from Edelman. See United States v. Prieto, 549 F.3d 513, 524–25 (7th Cir. 2008). Its witnesses testified that the bag was No. 20-1001 Page 3

separated from the other drugs at the scene, was transported from there to the local police evidence lab, to a state lab, back to the local lab, and then to trial, and was kept separate from other drug evidence in police custody. This was sufficient to allow a finding that the government “took reasonable precautions to preserve the original condition” of the bag. Id. at 525. It would thus be frivolous to argue that the district court abused its discretion by deciding that the weight discrepancy went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See id. at 524–25.

Counsel also rightly determines that it would be frivolous to challenge the admission of interview excerpts in which Edelman admitted to drug trafficking with McCoy weeks and hours before his arrest, being robbed of drug proceeds, and getting a gun. This evidence would not have been admissible to show Edelman’s propensity to commit the charged crimes. See FED. R. EVID. 404(b); United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845, 860 (7th Cir. 2014). But, as the district court explained, the fact that Edelman got a gun after being robbed of drug proceeds was probative of his motive for having the same gun when arrested—to further his drug trafficking—and was permissibly offered for that purpose. See United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 534–35 (7th Cir. 2014). Similarly, Edelman’s drug trafficking before his arrest was non-propensity evidence showing his intent to distribute the drugs he possessed. See United States v. Morgan, 929 F.3d 411, 427 (7th Cir. 2019) (finding evidence that defendant sold drugs the month before and day of arrest admissible to show intent). Finally, the court reasonably concluded that the high probative value of the recorded statements was not outweighed by a risk of unfair prejudice, because Edelman planned to argue (and did) that the gun was McCoy’s and that he did not intend to distribute the drugs. See id. at 429 (finding other-acts evidence highly probative and not outweighed by unfair prejudice where defendant denied intent); FED. R. EVID. 403.

B. Jury Instructions

We further agree with counsel that it would be frivolous to argue that the district court erred by instructing the jury to find Edelman guilty if he knowingly aided and abetted another person’s crime. Edelman objected to this instruction at trial because he was not indicted under the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2. We would review the jury charge in its entirety to determine whether the jury was misled. United States v. Renner, 238 F.3d 810, 812–13 (7th Cir. 2001). “Every indictment implicitly includes an aiding and abetting charge,” even if it fails to cite § 2. Id. at 814. Thus, so long as the instruction was supported by the record, we would not disturb it. See United States v. Lanzotti, 205 F.3d 951, 956 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the record supports the instruction: No. 20-1001 Page 4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Massaro v. United States
538 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. David Lanzotti and Connie L. Hughes
205 F.3d 951 (Seventh Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Michael C. Renner
238 F.3d 810 (Seventh Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Johnny R. White
443 F.3d 582 (Seventh Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Prieto
549 F.3d 513 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Nicolas Gomez
763 F.3d 845 (Seventh Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Kenneth Schmitt
770 F.3d 524 (Seventh Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Lloyd B. Lockwood
840 F.3d 896 (Seventh Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Vicente Quiroz
874 F.3d 562 (Seventh Circuit, 2017)
United States v. Ronald Coleman
914 F.3d 508 (Seventh Circuit, 2019)
United States v. Maria Moreno
922 F.3d 787 (Seventh Circuit, 2019)
Rehaif v. United States
588 U.S. 225 (Supreme Court, 2019)
United States v. Kent Morgan
929 F.3d 411 (Seventh Circuit, 2019)
United States v. Marvin Cates
950 F.3d 453 (Seventh Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Michael Gary
954 F.3d 194 (Fourth Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Matthew Jones
960 F.3d 949 (Seventh Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Arthur Friedman
971 F.3d 700 (Seventh Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Glenn McDonald
981 F.3d 579 (Seventh Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Brandon Edelman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brandon-edelman-ca7-2021.