Summary
holding that browser history indicative of child pornography was admissible to prove the defendant's intent to entice or coerce a minor to engage in sexual activity
Summary of this case from United States v. GoodwinOpinion
Criminal No. 12–65(CKK).
2013-01-13
UNITED STATES of America, v. Paul David HITE, Defendant.
David B. Kent, Julieanne Himelstein, U.S. Attorney's Office, Darcy Katzin, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for United States of America. Barry J. Pollack, Miller & Chevalier Chartered, Washington, DC, Claire G. Cardwell, Stone, Cardwell & Dinkin, PLC, James M. Nachman, Law Office of James M. Nachman, Richmond, VA, for Defendant.
David B. Kent, Julieanne Himelstein, U.S. Attorney's Office, Darcy Katzin, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for United States of America. Barry J. Pollack, Miller & Chevalier Chartered, Washington, DC, Claire G. Cardwell, Stone, Cardwell & Dinkin, PLC, James M. Nachman, Law Office of James M. Nachman, Richmond, VA, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLLEEN KOLLAR–KOTELLY, District Judge.
Defendant Paul David Hite is charged by Superseding Indictment with two counts of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The Government alleges that the Defendant engaged in a series of online chats and telephone conversations with an undercover police detective posing as an adult and arranged to engage in illicit sexual activity with a fictitious three year-old boy and twelve year-old girl. Presently before the Court is the Government's [26] Motion in Limine to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Government seeks to admit a variety of evidence recovered from a laptop seized from the Defendant's residence comprised primarily of (1) evidence of the Defendant allegedly accessing child pornography; and (2) evidence of the Defendant's online chats and email exchanges with other adults discussing illicit sexual activity with minors. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole—including an in camera review of the proposed photographic evidence—the Court finds that certain redacted evidence proffered by the Government meets the standard for admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Court will require the Government to redact certain portions of various proposed exhibits to exclude irrelevant and/or unduly prejudicial evidence that substantially outweighs its probative value. The probative value of the redacted evidence which the Court finds admissible is not substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Accordingly, the Government's Motion in Limine to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) is GRANTED IN PART as set forth below.
Gov't Mot., ECF No. [26]; Def.'s Opp'n, ECF No. [30]; Gov't Reply, ECF No. [32]. The Defendant's [34] Motion for Leave to File a Surreply is GRANTED. The Court considered the Defendant's Surreply in resolving the Government's motion.
The Court shall provide the Defendant an opportunity to review and object to the proposed IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE