United States v. Trenkler

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995 · Evidence

61 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 1995)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFed. R. Evid. 404(b)identitysignature crimemodus operandiconditional relevanceFed. R. Evid. 104(b)Fed. R. Evid. 403

Facts

The government’s theory was that Trenkler built the 1991 Roslindale bomb for Shay Jr. and sought to prove identity by introducing evidence that Trenkler had admitted building a 1986 Quincy bomb. The two bombs shared numerous characteristics, including being remote-control, radio-activated homemade devices using similar components, magnets, duct tape, batteries, switches, solder, and similar wire-joining techniques, and both were placed under vehicles and built for the benefit of friends while using third parties to help purchase components. The government also introduced testimony based on the ATF’s EXIS database stating that out of thousands of bombing incidents, only the Quincy and Roslindale incidents shared the queried characteristics. Other evidence included testimony from David Lindholm that Trenkler admitted building the Roslindale bomb and statements by agents about Trenkler’s bomb sketches and remarks during the investigation.

Issue

Whether the district court properly admitted evidence of the Quincy bomb under Rule 404(b) to prove identity, knowledge, and skill; whether EXIS database-derived testimony was admissible under the residual hearsay exception; and whether admission of Shay Jr.’s out-of-court statements violated the Confrontation Clause. Also, if the EXIS evidence was wrongly admitted, whether the error required reversal.

Rule

When Rule 404(b) evidence is offered to prove identity, the district court must determine under Rule 104(b) whether the shared characteristics of the prior act and the charged act are sufficiently idiosyncratic that a reasonable jury could find by a preponderance that the same person committed both acts. Exact identity is unnecessary; the court looks to the totality of the comparison and asks whether there is a conjunction of several identifying characteristics or some highly distinctive quality. Even if specially relevant, the evidence must still survive Rule 403 balancing, and residual-hearsay evidence under Rule 803(24) is admissible only if it has guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to the enumerated hearsay exceptions.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal prosecution in Ohio, the government claims Nolan Price built a mailbox bomb used in Akron. To prove identity, it offers evidence that four years earlier Price admitted building a different device in Toledo: both devices were homemade radio-activated bombs, mounted under vehicles with speaker magnets, powered by four AA batteries for the receiver, wrapped partly in duct tape, and used an unusual combination of twisting, soldering, and taping wire joints; in both incidents, a friend of Price bought parts from an electronics shop using a handwritten list.

Should the trial judge admit the earlier-bomb evidence to prove identity?

Explanation. When other-act evidence is offered to prove identity, the court asks under Rule 104(b) whether the shared features are sufficiently idiosyncratic that a reasonable jury could find it more likely than not that the same person committed both acts. Exact duplication is unnecessary; the court considers the totality and looks for a conjunction of identifying characteristics, not mere propensity. The evidence must also survive Rule 403. (Derived from United States v. Trenkler (1995).)