United States v. Williams (2006)

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006 · Evidence

458 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2006)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 404(b)Reverse Rule 404(b)Rule 403Propensity EvidenceSentencing ReasonablenessFederal Rule of Evidence 404(b)reverse 404(b)

Facts

Police responding to a drug-activity report watched Williams arrive at a house with Leon Clark while Andre Urlin waited in the driveway. When officers moved in, a detective saw Williams run into the house clutching a machine-pistol type weapon; officers cornered him in a bedroom, and a loaded semiautomatic handgun was found hidden between the mattress and box spring of the bed over which he had been crouching. At trial, Williams sought to introduce evidence that Urlin had recently been convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon, arguing that the gun found in the bedroom belonged to Urlin rather than Williams. The district court excluded that evidence and the jury convicted Williams.

Issue

May a defendant introduce a third party's prior bad act under a 'reverse Rule 404(b)' theory when the evidence is offered only to show that the third party has a propensity to commit the same kind of act? If not, was Urlin's prior firearm conviction nevertheless admissible here to prove identity or opportunity?

Rule

Rule 404(b)'s prohibition on using other-crimes evidence to prove propensity applies to evidence about any person, not just the defendant, and applies regardless of who offers the evidence. Under Stevens, a defendant receives more leeway only when offering third-party bad-acts evidence for a proper non-propensity purpose recognized by Rule 404(b); only then does the court assess relevance under Rule 401 and whether probative value is substantially outweighed by Rule 403 concerns. A proponent must articulate a chain of logical inferences that does not depend on propensity.

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 Philadelphia, Noah Mercer is tried for possessing cocaine found in the center console of a car he was driving. He seeks to introduce evidence that his passenger, Devin Cole, was convicted last year in Camden of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, arguing that the drugs in the car were probably Devin's.

Should the court admit Devin's prior conviction?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 404(b) bars propensity reasoning as to any 'person,' regardless of who offers the evidence. A defendant cannot introduce a third party's prior bad act merely to argue that the third party has a criminal disposition and therefore likely committed the charged act. The proffer here depends entirely on that forbidden inference, so it is inadmissible.