United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1264 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHNEAK JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:19-cr-832-1 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED NOVEMBER 30, 2023 — DECIDED JANUARY 5, 2024 ____________________

Before HAMILTON, KIRSCH, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellee Johneak Johnson has been indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) by possessing a firearm as a person previously convicted of a felony. He awaits trial. To challenge a pretrial ruling exclud- ing evidence from trial, the government has brought this in- terlocutory appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Relying on Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the district court decided before trial to exclude evidence that the firearm in question had an attached 2 No. 23-1264 laser sight and that two key witnesses saw the sight activated when defendant possessed (and brandished) the firearm. The district court found that any evidence regarding the laser sight would cause unfair prejudice to the defendant that would substantially outweigh its probative value. The government proposed to limit the laser sight evidence to reduce any risk of unfair prejudice. The government’s final proposal was to have its witnesses describe the firearm only as having a “glowing red dot,” without naming the laser sight or physically demonstrating that feature of the firearm. The district court found that the risk of unfair prejudice from even this limited evidence of the laser sight would still substan- tially outweigh its probative value. The court stood by its de- cision to exclude all evidence of the laser sight under Rule 403. We apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of re- view to a district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 403. District judges are more familiar with their cases and are generally in the better position to gauge both probative value and risk of unfair prejudice. Nevertheless, and with respect for our colleague on the district court, this is one of those rare cases where reversal is warranted. The issue here is broader than this case—the government’s ability to of- fer evidence identifying a weapon the accused is charged with possessing unlawfully, even if that identifying evidence tends to show the weapon is particularly dangerous. With slight variations, this issue can arise in many cases. In our view, the district court both understated the probative value of the identifying laser sight evidence and overstated the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. At a minimum, the government’s final proposal, set forth in its motion for reconsideration, should be sufficient to avoid No. 23-1264 3 unfair prejudice to the defendant. Upon remand, the government is entitled to carry out its final proposal to the district court—primarily that its witnesses describe the laser sight only as a “glowing red dot” on the handgun— accompanied by an appropriate limiting instruction. I. Evidence of the Charged Offense We do not intend to imply any views about the ultimate merits of the charge against Johnson, but audio and video re- cordings allow us to describe some events with confidence even before trial. On the morning of April 28, 2019, Caziah Walton called 911 to report a violent domestic dispute be- tween her mother, Naomi Thompkins, and defendant John- son at Thompkins’ Chicago home. Walton told the 911 opera- tor, “my mother’s boyfriend is tr