Tattoo Imagery as Admissible Identity Evidence: United States v. Reid and the Refinement of Federal Evidentiary & ACCA Doctrine

Introduction

In United States v. Jonathan Anthony Reid, No. 23-10619 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Jonathan Reid’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and his life sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), rejecting an array of evidentiary, sentencing-guideline, and constitutional challenges. Although the court’s opinion is unpublished, it squarely addresses several recurring issues:

whether a defendant’s tattoo that mirrors the modus operandi of a crime is admissible to prove identity;
how prior convictions can be used to show intent once a defendant stipulates to felony status under Rehaif;
the boundaries of “plain error” review where a defendant refuses to unlock a cell phone;
the continuing force of Somers (Florida aggravated assault as an ACCA violent felony) and Laines (Florida cocaine convictions as ACCA predicates); and
the non-structural nature of an Erlinger error regarding the ACCA “different occasions” inquiry.

Collectively, the opinion clarifies the evidentiary use of body art, tightens the application of Rule 404(b), and affirms the Eleventh Circuit’s stance on several hot-button ACCA and Second Amendment questions.

Summary of the Judgment

Reid was convicted by a jury after a nightclub shooting in which forensic and digital evidence tied him to a rental vehicle, firearm, and ballistic matches. The district court admitted:

photographs of a tattoo on Reid’s torso depicting a masked gunman wielding two semi-automatic pistols (mirroring the shooter on surveillance video);
evidence of Reid’s prior Florida conviction for felon-in-possession (Fla. Stat. § 790.23);
an agent’s testimony that Reid refused to divulge his phone passcodes; and
the agent’s lay opinion that a prepaid phone was a “drop phone” facilitating the shooting.

On appeal, Reid asserted six trial errors, three ACCA errors, and two constitutional challenges. The Eleventh Circuit—reviewing some claims for abuse of discretion, others for plain error— found none meritorious and affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited & Their Influence

a. Evidentiary Authorities

Fed. R. Evid. 403 & 404(a)/(b) – Balancing probative value vs. unfair prejudice and governing character evidence.
United States v. Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F.2d 1216 (11th Cir. 1993) – Limiting instructions mitigate prejudice.
United States v. Lopez, 649 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2011) – Courts view evidence in light most favorable to admission under Rule 403.
United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) – Prior felon-in-possession conviction admissible to show knowing possession, later narrowed by Rehaif.
United States v. Hawkins, 934 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2019) – Boundary between permissible and impermissible law-enforcement lay opinion.

b. Sentencing & ACCA Authorities

Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) – Jury must decide ACCA different-occasions facts; but error is not structural (United States v. Rivers, 134 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2025)).
Somers v. United States, 66 F.4th 890 (11th Cir. 2023) – Florida aggravated assault categorically violent after Fla. Sup. Ct. clarification.
Laines, 69 F.4th 1221 (11th Cir. 2023) – Florida cocaine offenses remain ACCA predicates; no “clearly established” overbreadth.
Brown v. United States, 602 U.S. 101 (2024) – Use federal drug schedules in effect at time of state conviction.

c. Constitutional Authorities

United States v. Stancil, 4 F.4th 1193 (11th Cir. 2021) – § 922(g) within Commerce Clause power.
United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010); Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025) – Felon-in-possession prohibition survives Bruen/Rahimi.

2. Legal Reasoning Explained

The court’s opinion proceeds in three tiers: trial-level evidentiary rulings, ACCA sentencing issues, and constitutional claims.

Tattoo Evidence Not a “Prior Act.”
Because a tattoo is a physical characteristic, Rule 404(b)—governing “other acts”—does not apply. The tattoo’s resemblance to the masked gunman made it highly probative of identity, and a limiting instruction curbed prejudice, satisfying Rule 403.
Prior Felon-in-Possession Conviction Relevant to Intent.
Even though Reid stipulated to felony status (the Rehaif knowledge-of-status element), “knowing possession” remained contested. A prior conviction involving the same mens rea logically tends to prove present intent (Jernigan).
Passcode Refusal ≠ Plain Error.
No Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court precedent clearly bars reference to a suspect’s refusal to unlock a phone; therefore, any alleged error was not “plain.”
“Drop Phone” Testimony Permissible Lay Opinion.
The agent spoke from investigative experience, not specialized technical analysis, and was responsive to defense questioning—thus proper under Rule 701.
Prosecutor’s Closing Comment Harmless.
Even assuming misidentification, the remark was brief amid overwhelming forensic evidence, failing the prejudice prong of the plain-error test.
No Cumulative Error.
Absent individual error, the doctrine cannot apply.
ACCA Enhancement Upheld.
• Different Occasions – Reid’s failure to dispute the PSI facts amounted to an admission;
• Violent Felony – Somers controls Florida aggravated assault;
• Serious Drug Offense – No precedent clearly establishes overbreadth of Florida cocaine/ heroin statutes; therefore no plain error.
Commerce Clause & Second Amendment Challenges Foreclosed.
The gun’s interstate travel satisfied the jurisdictional hook, and controlling circuit precedent (Rozier) upholds § 922(g)(1) against modern Second Amendment attacks.

3. Potential Impact

Evidentiary Practice: Prosecutors in the Eleventh Circuit may rely on body art, distinctive scars, or physical traits to prove identity without triggering Rule 404(b), provided limiting instructions are given.
Digital-Privacy Litigation: Defense counsel now know that refusal-to-unlock arguments face an uphill battle on plain-error review; preserving the issue requires a timely objection or a motion to suppress.
ACCA Litigation: Reid cements Somers and Laines; defendants seeking to challenge Florida aggravated assault or cocaine convictions must identify new Supreme Court or Florida Supreme Court decisions to reopen the question.
Second Amendment Landscape: The court’s brief reaffirmation of Rozier indicates that, post-Bruen, the Eleventh Circuit views felon-disarmament as historically grounded, reducing the traction of future § 922(g)(1) challenges.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 404(b) vs. Physical Characteristics
Rule 404(b) bars evidence of “other acts” to show propensity. A tattoo is not an “act”; it is akin to a fingerprint. Therefore, its admissibility is governed only by general relevance and prejudice balancing (Rule 403).

Plain Error Review
An appellate court will not reverse unless the error is (1) an actual error, (2) obvious (“plain”), (3) affecting substantial rights, and (4) seriously affecting the fairness or integrity of proceedings. If no Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent squarely addresses the point, the error is usually not “plain.”

Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)
Enhances sentences for § 922(g) offenders with three prior “violent felony” or “serious drug offense” convictions committed on different occasions. Recent Supreme Court cases (Borden, Erlinger) and Eleventh Circuit decisions (Somers, Rivers) continually refine what offenses qualify and how facts must be found.

“Different Occasions” Post-Erlinger
Juries, not judges, must decide whether the three predicate crimes occurred on separate occasions—but if a defendant admits the separateness in a Presentence Investigation Report and lodges no objection, any error is non-structural and subject to harmless-error analysis.

Conclusion

United States v. Reid does more than affirm one man’s conviction; it crystallizes several doctrinal currents in the Eleventh Circuit:

Tattoos and other bodily markings, when closely mirroring a crime, are legitimate identity evidence outside Rule 404(b).
The government may use a prior felon-in-possession conviction to prove “knowing possession” even after a Rehaif stipulation.
Digital-privacy objections (e.g., refusal to unlock phones) must be preserved; absent clear precedent, appellate relief is unlikely.
Florida aggravated assault and cocaine (and likely heroin) convictions remain solid ACCA predicates within the Eleventh Circuit.
Errors in failing to submit ACCA “different occasions” to a jury are not structural, injecting a practical waiver dynamic into sentencing litigation.
Commerce Clause and Second Amendment attacks on § 922(g)(1) retain little traction in this circuit post-Bruen.

Practitioners should heed the opinion’s evidentiary guidance and the reiterated importance of timely objections—both at trial and sentencing—lest potential errors be relegated to the demanding plain-error standard. Going forward, Reid will likely be cited whenever physical identifiers, especially tattoos, are used to link a defendant to a crime scene and when litigants challenge Florida predicates under the ACCA.