United States of America v. Marvin Benjamin Martin

Washington, DC criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with attempted possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of n,n-dimethylpentylone (commonly referred to as "boot”), a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846.<br>
<br>
Defendant Marvin Martin faces a jury trial on July 14, 2025, for attempted possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of n,n-dimethylpentylone (commonly referred to as "boot”), a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. Indictment, ECF No. 4; Min. Order (Dec. 30, 2024). The government has moved pre-trial for admission in its case-in-chief, as either intrinsic to the charged offense or as other bad acts, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b), two categories of evidence. The first category of proffered evidence consists of law enforcement agent testimony, photographs, three recorded jail calls between defendant and inmates in Bureau of Prisons ("BOP”) facilities, and two of defendant's text message chains showing, in the government's view, that, on March 7, 2024, defendant fled from law enforcement on three separate occasions after he retrieved a package shipped from China at an address not associated with him in Washington, D.C. See Gov't's Consol. Mot. to Intro. Intrinsic Evid. or Alternatively to Intro. Other Crimes Evid. Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) ("Gov't's Consol. Mot.”) at 1, 19-23, ECF No. 62; Gov't's Reply Supp. Gov't's Consol. Mot. ("Gov't's Reply”) at 1, 11 n.6, ECF No. 67; Gov't's Mot. to Intro. Intrinsic Evid. or Alternatively to Intro. Other Crimes Evid. Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) ("Gov't's 404(b) Mot.”) at 4-8, ECF No. 27. This package originally contained about ten kilograms of boot but for purposes of the controlled delivery law enforcement replaced the boot with a "sham” substance. Gov't's Consol. Mot. at 2. The government contends that, even if not deemed "intrinsic,” this evidence of defendant's efforts to avoid law enforcement after retrieving the package shows "his determination to evade arrest because he had drugs on him” and thereby "shows knowledge and consciousness of guilt.”<br>
<br>
* * *<br>
<br>
Legal issue Can evidence of a defendant's prior drug possession and evasive actions be admitted in court to show knowledge and intent to distribute a controlled substance?<br>
Headnote<br>
<br>
CRIMINAL LAW. EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY. The case addresses the admissibility of evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b), where the government seeks to introduce evidence of the defendant's actions and communications as either intrinsic to the charged offense of attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, or as other bad acts to demonstrate knowledge, intent, and consciousness of guilt. The court evaluates whether the evidence is admissible for non-propensity purposes and whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.<br>
<br>
CRIMINAL LAW. EVIDENCE OF FLIGHT. The court considers whether evidence of the defendant's evasive actions from law enforcement following the attempted collection of a package allegedly containing controlled substances is admissible to demonstrate consciousness of guilt and lack of mistake under Rule 404(b).<br>
<br>
CRIMINAL LAW. PRIOR ACTS EVIDENCE. The court examines the admissibility of the defendant's prior and subsequent acts of possession and distribution of controlled substances and related communications as evidence of intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake relating to the charged offense, assessing its relevance and the balance between probative value and potential prejudice under Rule 403.<br>
<br>
Key Phrases Controlled delivery. Evidence admissibility. Consciousness of guilt. Intent to distribute. Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. <br>

To the extent identifiable as explained herein, see supra n.1, may be admitted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).