## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 2967 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R O GE R L O UG HRY, al so known as M AYORROGER, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDivisi on. No . 1:08- cr-00132-WTL-KPF -5

—Wi ll iam T. L awren ce, Judge .
A RG UE D M AY 5, 2011

—D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 11, 2011

B efore M A NI ON, W OO D , an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges , W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . RogerLoughrywas convi cted o f adv er ti sing, di st r ibut i ng, a nd c o ns pi r i ngt o ad ve r ti se a nd d ist rib u te ch ild p or n og ra p h y th ro u gh an on l i n e d ep os ito r y c al l ed th e “Cac he

. ” Onl y “ l as ci vi o us e xhibi ti o n” porno gr ap h y, w h ich i ncl ud ed the exhi bi ti on o f gi rl s’ ge ni tal s, was perm i tte d on the Cache. I m age s depi cti ng se xual conta ct or otherse xually e xpli ci t m ate ri al2 N o. 10

- 2967

w er e pr ohibi ted. O verL oughr y’ s Federa lR ule of Evidence 40 3 o bj e c t i o n, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta l l o we d th e g o v e r nm en t to s ho w the j ur y s ev er aluncha r g ed vi deo s depi ct i ng “har d cor e” pornog ra phy disc ove re d i n L ou gh ry ’ s ho m e. W e c onc l ude tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n a dm i tt i ng th e “ h ar d co re ” p or n og ra p h y w ith ou t e x am in in g it, in not expla i ni ng it s rea soning un der Ru l e 403, and i n adm i tti ng the ev i dence ev en tho u gh i t was hi ghl y infl am m atory a nd had onl y m ini m alprobati ve val ue. These er ro rs were not harm l ess . There f or e, we re ver se.

I . B AC KGR OUND This case i nvol ves defe nd ant Rog erLoughry ’ s par ti ci pati o n in a n o nl i ne de po si to r y call ed th e “Ca ch e. ” The Cac h e h ad 5 36 user s, abo ut 10 0 o fwh om used the si te to advert i se and dist ribute c hi l d pornog ra phy to each o th era nd to o th erus er s. M o sto fthe r emai ni ng us ers (betw een 400 and 450, accord ing to the gov ernm en t’s est i m ate ) vi ew ed , but did notpost, chi l d pornog ra phy. I n additi on t o pornog ra ph y, the Cache al so featured on l i ne g a mes . Lo ughry j o i ne d the Ca c he the da y a f ter i t wento nl i ne , o n Nov embe r1 2, 2 00 5, us i ngthe n am e “ M ay or ro ge r.” Cache partici pants were separ ate d i nto ti er s. The to p ti erhad tw o a dm i ni st r at o r s, “ Das ” an d “ Dev i l

. ” The next t ier was com posed ofco - adm i ni str ato rs , wh i ch th e govern m en t c o n t e n d s i n c lu d e d Lou gh ry as “M ay or ro ge r,” an d tw o ot h er p eo p l e , “ D u b lh elix ,” and “A urthurg er y. ” T h e fi ve adm i ni str ato rs had acce ss to th e a d m in ist r a t i v e c o n t ro l p an el a n d co u ldN o. 10

- 2967 3 ad m it, p ro m ot e, or d em ot e o th er m em b er s, as w ell as c o nt r o lc o nt en t o n the Ca ch e. Lo weri n the hi er ar ch y w er e m oder ato rs , m ast er s, and tr usted m em ber s. T he site w as d ivi d ed i nt o sub -f orum s and top ic areas. Th ere w as a non -nu d e gall ery area an d a nu d e gall ery ar ea, wh i ch w as subdivi ded byag es i nto “18 a nd o ver nude , ” “1 3- 18 nude , ” an d “ unde r1 3 nude ” ca te g o r i es . The Cac he ’ s r ul es pr o hibi ted po st i nga ny i m ag es de pi ct i ng se xua lc o nt ac t, masturba ti o n, pe ne tr at i o n, b o y s, o rmen. Acco r di ngt o se ve r alwi tn es se s, the pur po se o fthe Ca ch e w as to provi de i ts m em ber s w i th ac cess to chi l d pornog ra phy consi sting o fthe l asci vi ous e xhibi ti on o fthe geni tal s o f m i norgi rl s. I n ear l y S eptem ber20 08, l aw enforc em ent a gents execut ed a sear chwar r an t o fLo ughr y ’ s ho m e. The age nts s ei zed L ou ghry ’ s co m pu terand var i ous CDs. The c o mput e r ’ s p r i mar y h a r d d r i v e wa s r e g i s t e r ed to Lo ughr y a nd c o nt aine d a us era cc o untunde rthe n am e “M ayo rr oge r. ” Ther e were al so m ult i ple “bo okm ar ks” o r “f avo ri tes ” t o provi de exped ite d acces s to sp ecifi c page s o n the Cache, i ncl ud i ng a l i nk to th e admi ni st r at i ve co nt r o lpa ne l

. The g o ve r nm en t als o fou n d files c on ta in in g c h ild p or n og ra p h y in th e com p ut er’s M ayorroger acc ou n t, i n oth er fol d ers w i thi n the com pu ter, and on the CD s. On Septem ber9, 20 08, a federa lgran d ju ryi nd i cted Loughry on char ges o fadver ti si ng and co nspir acy t o a dv e r t i s e c hi l d p o r no g r a phy i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C. § 2 251( d)( 1) (A ), and o fdi str ibuti ng and co nspir acy to di s t r ib ut e c hi l d p o r no g r a ph y in v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C.4 N o. 10

- 2967 § 22 52 ( a) ( 2) a nd 1 8 U. S

. C

. § 2 25 2(b) ( 1)

. A su per se di ng i nd i ctm ent c harg ed si xteen c ounts, o ne o fco nspira cy to advert i se chi l d po rno gr aphy, o ne o fco nspir acy to d ist rib u te ch ild p or n og ra p h y, t w elv e o f ad ve rt isin g c h ild p or n og ra p h y, an d tw o c o u n ts of d ist rib u tio n of ch ild pornog ra phy. Loughrywas not charg ed w i th poss ess i on o f chi l d pornog ra phy. Du ring tr i al, the gov er n m en t intro du ced evi dence that Loughry re sponded to se ver alpost i ng s on the Cache. Fo r exam ple , the l i nk to a ser i es cal l ed “Li ttl e Vi rg i ns” sta ted “by Das, on M ay 17, 2006 , w i th a h u ge thank s to M ayo rr oge r. ” S eve ra lm onths l ate r, a fter a se ri es ofr epl i es thanki ng bo th “Das” and “M ayo rroger ” for th e se t o fi m ag es , Lo ughr y po st ed, “Ic an ’ t ta k e any c re d it h er e. D as d id it all. I l ov e t o giv e.” A n ot h er ex am p le was Lo ughr y ’ s r es po ns e to a “ sc hoo lpa ss i o n” po st i ng by Ca c he me mbe r“ Lo man1 6 , ” wh e r e Lo ughry wr ote , “t o ta l l y a wes o m e, g uy s. Gr ea t wor k

. M any, many thanks f or these cuti es. ” There w er e othe r si m ilar r epl i es fro m Loughry thanki ng othe r m em ber s forthei r postings. L ou gh ry also p osted a m essag e saying th at he w as interest ed i n i m age s o fpre pu besc ent g i rl s. B ut none of th e im ag es Lo ughr y was c ha r g ed wi thdi st r ibut i ng o ra d v e r t i s i n gw e r e p o s t e d b y h i m. The go vernm ent a l so i ntro du ced evi d en ce that Loughry perf or m ed sev er aladm i ni strati ve acti vi ti es wi th i n the C ach e. The se i nc l ude d m ak i ng“ Dublhe l i x” a co - adm i ni str ato r, pro m oting and del et ing m em ber s, an d creat i ngmul ti pl e ne w m embe ra cc o unt s. One wi tn es s te st i fi ed th atLo ughr y di sc us se d de m o tingN o. 10

- 2967 5

on e m em b er for fa ilin g t o m ain ta ina su fficie n tly acti ve l eve lo fpart i ci pati on in the Cache. Dur i ngthe t es ti m o ny o fi ts fi na lwi tn es s, the g o ve r nm en t in tr od u c ed se ve r a l p h ot og ra p h s a n d vid eo s o f ch ild p ornogra p hy discov ered on L ou gh ry’s hom e com p u t er. So m e o f th e im ag es w er e s im ila r to th os e d isp lay ed in th e Cac he

. Buto th er s, i nc l udi ngv i deo s o f g i r l s be i ng f o r ce d t o e ng ag e i n s ex ua la ct s wi tho ne an oth era nd of adu lt m ales rapin g prep ub esce nt gi rls, w ere m or e in flam m at or y a n d w er e p ro h ibit ed b y C ac h e “ ru les .” The go vernm ent di d no t charg e Loughr y with dis tr ibuti ng, advert i si ng, o r posse ssing anyo fthatpor nogr aphy. O ve r L ou gh ry ’s o bj ec tio n, th e co u rtad m itt ed th e e vid en ce from Lou gh ry’s hom e c o m p ut er. Th e j ury eve ntual l y re turned a gui l ty ver dict on al lsi xteen co unt s, a nd Lo ughr y w as se nt en ce d t o c o nc ur r en t pri son ter m s o f36 0 m onths on ea c h adver ti si ng- re l ate d count a nd 24 0 m onths on ea c h di str ibuti on- re l ate d count. Loughrynow app eal s the di str i ct c ourt ’ s d ecis i on to a dm i t th e “h ar d c o r e” porn ogr aphy the g o ve r nm en t d isc ov er ed on h is h om e c om p u te r.

II. A N A L Y S IS A di str i ct c ourt ’ s int er p re tat i on o fthe rul es ofev i dence i s r e v i e we d d e n o v o and i t s de c i s i o n t o a dmi to re xc l ud e ev id en c e is rev iew ed for a n ab u se of d isc r et ion

. U nited Sta tes v. R o gers , 587 F.3d 816 , 819 (7th C ir. 2009).6 N o. 10

- 2967 A. Di s t r i c tC o urtAbu s e d i t s Di s c r e t i o n The dis tr i ct c ourtf ound that the por nogr aphy di s c o v e re d i n Loughry’ s ho m e co m pu terwas ad m issibl e under Feder alRule o fEvi dence 414

. The governm ent’ s s tat ed reason for int rod uc ing th e p ornogr aph y f o und i n Loughry’ s ho m e co m pu terwas that i t a nti ci pated Loughry w oul d argue that he w as “onl y a n adm i ni str ato r ofan a du lt porn gam e bo ar d.” The go vernm ent wanted to s ho w tha t Lo ughr y ha d a “ l o ng - st an di ngpe r si st en t pattern ofco l l ecting [ pornog ra phy]” and w as not “oper atin g b y m ist ak e o r l a c k of k n ow led ge ” b u t “ ac tu ally [ had] the i nten t and m oti ve” to j oi n the conspi ra cy to dist ribute c hi l d pornog ra p h y thro ugh the Cache. L ou gh ry ’s c ou n se l obj ec te d on rele va n c e a n d R u le 403 gr ounds because , he a rgued, the gove rnm ent was tr yi ng to co nvi nce the j ury that L ou gh ry“i s a bad guy, an d so , he h a s g o t t o b e g u ilty of th is ot h er st u ff as w ell.” Loughry now ar gues that the di str i ct c ourtco m m i tte d se ve r ale r r o r s when i t admi tt ed th e evi den ce , i nc l udi ng n otrev iew in g th e “ h ar d co re ” p or n og ra p h y fou n d in Lo ughr y ’ s ho m e co m put erb efo r e admi tt i ngi t, no t ar ti cul at i ngi ts r ea so ni ngunde rRul e 40 3, a nd ul ti m at ely s tr i k i ng the wrong bal ance i n i ts Rule 403 rul i ng. R u le 4 14 (a) p ro v i d es th at, “ina c rim in al c as e in w h ich th e d efe n d an t is ac c u se d of an offe n se of ch ild m ol est ati on, ev i dence ofthe defe nd an t’ s co m m i ssi on ofa no the ro ffe ns e . . . o fc hi l d mo l e s t a t i o n i s a dmis sibl e, and m ay be c onsi dered f ori ts bear i ng o n a n y m att er to whi chi t i s re l ev an t. ” F ed. R. Ev i d. 4 14 ( a)

. The te r m “ ch i l d m o l es ta tio n” e nc o m pas se s pr i o ro rdi ffer en tN o. 10

- 2967 7 conduct i nvol vi ng the di str ibuti on, adver ti si ng, o r posse ssio n of ch ild p or n og ra p h y. SeeFed

. R. Evid

. 414(d ). Rule 403 re quir es the ex cl usi on o fr el evantev i dence w hen i ts “pro bati ve val ue is substanti al l y o utw ei ghed by the dange r ofunfa i r prej ud i ce, co nfusi on of t h e i ssues , o r m i sl ea di ngthe j ur y . . . . ” F ed. R. Evi d. 40 3. “Unf ai rpr ej udice

. . . m eans an undu e t endency to sugg es t d eci si on on a n i m proper bas i s, co mm o nl y , t ho ug h not ne cess aril y, an e m otional one.” A d visory Com m ittee’s N ot es on Fe d . R. E vid . 403 , cited ap pro vin gly in O ld C hief v. U nited Sta tes , 519 U

. S. 172, 184-85 (1997 ). R u le 4 14 co n st itu te s a n ex c ep tio n to th e ru le th at ev iden ce o fpr i o rb ad ac ts i s n o t admi ss ibl e to s ho w a de fen dant’ s p r o pe ns i ty t o c o mm i tthe o ffe ns e c ha r g e d. See R o gers , 587 F

. 3d at8 22

- 23 ( di sc us singa na l o g o us Rul e 41 3)

. W e r ec o g ni ze tha t th er e has bee n s o m e co nfusi on r ega rdi ng the applic at i on o fRule 40 3 t o propensi ty ev id en c e t h at is ad m iss ible u n d er R u l e 41 4. Se ei d. Butc o nt r ary t o the g o ve rnm en t’ s su g g es ti o n t o the d ist ri ct c ourt, we have ne veri nti m ate d that Rule 403 appli es i n a “re l axed f or m ” t o adm i ssibi l i ty deter m i nati ons und erRule 41 4. W hat we have sai d i s that C ongr ess h as deter m i ned “that i n a c ri m i naltrial f or[ a s exualo ffense] , i t i s no t i m proper to d ra w th e in fer en c e t h at th e d efe n d an t c o m m itt ed th is sexualo ffen se b ecause he ha s a pro pensi ty to do so

. ” Id. at 82 2. B u t “ [e]v en if th e e vid e n c e d oe s n otcr ea te u n fair prej ud i ce s ol el y b ecause i t r est s o n propensity, i t m ay sti l lr i sk a d ecis i on o n the basi s o fso m ethi ng l i ke passi on orbi as

—that i s, an i m proper basi s. ” Id. To m i ti gat e th at risk, after a R ule 414 an alysis, th e d istri ct cou rt8 N o. 10

- 2967

m ust ca re fully c onsi der wheth erpri orbad ac ts evi dence sh ou ld be ex c lu d ed p u rs u an t t o R u le 4 03

. Id. A l ong w i th se ver alo therci rcui ts, we have s tr ess ed that “Rul e 40 3 r emai ns a n i m po r ta nts afegua r d a g ains t the ad m issi on of pr eju d ici al evi d en ce” th at is otherw ise ad m iss ible u n d er R u le 4 14

. Id. at82 3; see also U ni t ed St at e s v. LeM ay, 260 F.3d 101 8, 1026 ( 9th Cir. 20 01 ) ( “[ T] he r e i s no th i ngfundam en ta l l y unf ai rabo ut th e a llow an c e o f p ro p en sit y e vid en c e u n d er R u le 4 1 4 . .

. [ a] s l ong as the pr otect ions of Rule 403 re m ai n i n pla ce to ensure thatpote nti al l y d evastat i ng ev i dence of litt le p ro b at ive va lu e w ill no t re ac h th e j u ry .”); U nited State s v. C asti ll o , 140 F.3d 874, 883 (10th Cir. 1998 ) ( “[ A ] pp l i cation o f R u le 40 3 to R ule 41 4 evi de nc e e l i mi na t e s the du e p r o c e s s c o nc e r ns p ose d by Rule 41 4. ”)

. There sho uld there f or e be no questi on th at alth ou gh ev id en c e c an n otbe ex c lu d ed u n d er R u le 40 3 si m pl y becaus e i t te nds t o s ho w tha t th e defen dan t ha s a pr o pen si tyt o c o m m i t a se x o ffen se , Rul e 40 3 co nt i nues t o ri gor ousl y a pp l y t o Rule 414 evi dence.

1. Loughry ’ s Ru l e 4 03 O bject i on Pres erved W e i ni ti al l y dispos e of the gov er nm ent’ s sugge sti on in i ts bri efthatLoughrydi d not d o en ou gh to pre ser ve hi s Rul e 4 03 obj ecti on t o the “ hard co re” pornog r a p h y fou n d in h is h om e. L ou gh ry ob j ec te d sp ec ifica lly on Rul e 40 3 g r o unds t o a l lo fthe g o ve r nm ent’s exhi bits , in c l ud i ng tho se exhi bi ts that conta i ned “h ar d c o r e” po r n o g r a p h y . And t he g o ve r nm en tN o. 10

- 2967 9 ag re ed d u rin g t ria l th at L ou g h r y h ad p re se rv ed h is Rul e 40 3 o bj ec ti o n: [ Loughry’ s co unsel ] : One l astpoin t .
. . [ h]o w w oul d the Courtpre ferIpre ser ve m y obj ecti on? The Co ur t: Y ou a r e . . . g o i ngt o o bj ec t to a ny pu bl i cati on o fthe conte nt of [ seve ra lnum ber ed ex hibits of p ornogra p hy f ou nd i n L ou gh ry’s hom e] ; ar e y ou not ? [L ou gh ry ’s c ou n se l]: A m on g ot h er th in gs .

. . . [ Gov ernm en t’ s co uns el ] : [ W ] e wi l la g r ee , Yo ur H o no r, that he o bj ec te d t o the a dm i ss i o n o fthe chi l d p or n ogr aphy cont ai ned on the co m pu terat th e r es i d e n c e . . . th e v i d s [ s i c ] p l u s C D

. . . [ an d seve ra lo therexhibi ts] to the exten t th at i t i s r el eva nt
. W i th o ut ne eding to co nt i nue to do so , Ithi nk h e h as laid th at ob j ec tio n . [ Loughry’ s co unsel ] : A s lo ng as I am cover ed, then th at is fin e. T he govern m en t’s cont en tion on a p p eal that L ou gh ry did not do enough to prese rv e hi s Rule 403 o bj ecti on has no m er i t.

2. Revi ew ofEvi den ce Loughryco ntends thati t was err or fo r the di str i ct c ou r t t o fail to rev iew th e v id eo s d isc ov er ed in h is ho m e be f o r e admi tti ng the m i nt o e vi den ce . The10 N o. 10

- 2967

cour t ackno w l edged that not havi ng fi rs t- hand kno w l edge ofthe conte nts ofthe conte ste d evi dence w as probl em ati c. The co ur t st at ed: “I g ue ss I am at so m ewha t o fa di sa dva nta ge n otkn ow in g e x ac tly w h at ite m s a n d d ep ict ion s, if you w i l la re on Gover nm ent’ s [ exhibi ts]

. ” But i nstea d of exam in ing the ph otograp hs and videos for i tself, the c ourtr el i ed on the go vernm ent’s descri pti on o f th e c on te st ed ev id en c e in m ak in g its d ec is i o n u n d er R u le 403. A t least one circu it has he ld th at a d istri ct cou rt’s f ail ure to r ev i ew ch al l en g ed ev i d en ce w he n con side rin g w h et h er su c h ev id en c e s h ou ld be ex c lu d ed u n d er R u le 40 3 is err or as a m at te r of law

. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. C urt in , 48 9 F

. 3d 935, 9 58 (9th Cir

. 20 07) ( en banc) ( “[ W ] e ho l d as a m att ero fl aw t hat a co urt does not proper l y e xerci se i ts bal anci ng d isc re ti on under R u l e 4 0 3 wh e n i t f a i l s t o p l a c e o n th e s c a l e s a nd perso nal l y e xam i ne and eva l uate all t h at i t m ust w ei gh [r eferr i ng to st or i es ofadult s e ngaging in sexual acts w ith ch il d ren foun d on th e d efend an t’s com p ut er]. Rel yi ng o nl y o n the descri pti ons ofadver sar y c ounsel i s insuffi ci ent t o ensure thata defe n dant re cei ves du e pr oce ss and fa ir tr i alto wh i ch he i s e nti tl ed und er ou r Con stitut ion.”) ( em p ha sis in origi na l)

. Ou r case s al so em phasi ze that a di str i ct c ourt, i n exer ci sin g its d isc re tio n u n d er R u le 4 03 , m u stca re fu lly anal yze and ass ess the p re j ud i ci aleffect ofchal l enged ev id en c e. Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 21 6 F .3d 61 1, 61 4- 15 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( noting tha t the di str i ct c ourt“e ngage d i n a c ar efula na l y si s o f th e ev i den ce the g o ve r nm en tN o. 10

- 2967 11 p ro ffer ed ”); U nited Sta tes v. A sher, 17 8 F

. 3d 486, 49 1- 92 ( 7th Ci r . 19 99 ) ( ex pl aini ng, i n r es po ns e to th e d efen d an t’s arg u m en t that the dist rict c ou rt “m er ely c on d u c te d a su p er ficia l rev iew ” o f t h e c h alle n ge d ev iden c e, that the c ourt“t oo k g re at car e t o anal yze ea ch pie ce o fp ro ffer ed evi dence .

. . and cl ear l y a rt i cul ate d i ts r ea s o n i n g f o r a d mi t t i n g c e r t a i n e v i den ce a nd re fu sing otherev i dence”) ; U nited Sta tes v. Liefer, 77 8 F.2d 1236, 1241 (7th Cir. 1985 ) (“Th e trial cou rt m us t ca r efully a ss es s al le vi den ce o ffer ed bythe g o ve r nm ent .
. . to ensur e . . . [ that i t] has proba tiv e va l ue that i s no t s ubstanti al l y o utw eig h ed bythe danger of unfai r prej ud ice t o the defendant. ”) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br own , 6 88 F

. 2d 11 12 , 1 11 7 ( 7th Ci r . 1 982 ) ( ex pl aini ng th at, c o nt r ary t o the de fen dan t’ s con te nt i o n tha t th e tr ial jud ge p er m it t e d “t h e w h ole sa le a d m iss ion ” o f ch all enged e vi dence, the “r eco rd sho w [ ed] that each pi ece o fpr o ffer ed ev i den ce was c ar eful l y ana l y ze d a nd ad m itted only w he n it w as foun d to be rel evan t”). There m ay be c ase s where the probati ve val ue o f the e vi denc e is so m i ni m althati t wil lbe obvi ous t o th e co ur t th at t he po te nt i al pr ej udi ce t o t he defen dan t su bs ta nt i al l y o ut wei g hs a ny pr o ba ti ve v alue th e e vid en c e m igh t h av e. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Gonzal ezFlo res , 418 F.3d 109 3 , 1 098 (9th Cir. 2005) (“W he re the e vi dence i s o f verysl i ght ( i fany) probati ve val ue, i t’ s a n abuse ofdi scr eti on t o adm it i t i fther e’ s e ven a m odest l i kel i hood o funfa i r prej ud i ce o r a s m al lr i sk o fmis l ea di ngthe j ur y . ”) ( ci ta ti on om itted )

. The safestco urse , however, i s forthe cour t t o re vi ew the c onte ste d evi dence f ori tse l f

. In thi s ca se, r el yi ng o n12 N o. 10

- 2967

T he g ov ern m en t told the cou rt: “[L ou g hr y ] d efined child 1 p o r n o g r a p h y a s h a r d c o r e s t u ff, s e x a c t s . W e l l , g u e s s wh a t ? He has th a t stu ff t oo. W e need t o be able t o show thathe has s t uffe venhe defi ne s i s il l eg al, b ec aus e we ha ve har d co re vi deos th a t a re ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y u n d er h is d efi n iti o n .” th e p ar tie s’ d es c rip tio n s w as ins u fficie n t. Fe w , i f an y, d et ails w er e p ro vid ed to th e c ou rtw h e n it was de ci di ngwhethe rt o a dm i t th e ev i den ce . The g o ve r nm ent’ s o nl y desc ri pti on o fthe var i ous c hal l enged e xhibi ts w as th at som e o fthem depic ted por nogr aphy that w as sim i l arto thato n the Cache and that othe rs depic ted

“ ha r d c o r e ” p o r no g r a ph y . Ba s e d o n tha tv a gu e de s c r i p- 1 ti on, the cour t c ou l d not hav e pr oper l y wei ghed the pr ej ud i ci ali m pact o fthe chal l enged e vi dence aga i nst whatever pr obat i ve val ue the cour t be l i eve d the e v i de nc e h a d. Con tr ary t o the g o ve r nm en t’ s co nt en ti o n a t o r ala r g um ent, the s l i ghtl y m o r e deta i l ed narr ati v e descri pti on pro vi ded bythe gov er nm ent’ s w itness bef or e the vi deos w er e shown to the j ury ( and aft er the c ourthad al re ady deci ded to adm i t the ev i dence) d id n ot su ffice ei th er. For exam p le, the gove rnm en t’s wi tn es s st at ed th ato ne o fthe v ideos de pi ct ed “[ an ] ad u lt m ale p er for m in g a se x ac t o n [a] fem ale m in or .” That expl anati on does notte ll the co urt w hi ch act s ar e s how n i n the vi deo. W hi l e a l ldepic ti ons ofan adul t en g ag i ngi n s ex ua la ct s wi tha yo ungc hi l d a r e bo und to b e rep ulsiv e, the i m pac t o n the j ur y wi l lde pen d up o n the n a tur e a nd s e v e r i ty o fthe a c t s de pi c t e d.N o. 10

- 2967 13 The chal l enged vi deos i ncl ud e the ki nd of hi ghl y r eprehe ns ibl e and offen sive con ten t tha t m ight lead a j ury to convi ct b ecause i t th in ks that the defendant i s a bad pe r s o n a nd de s e r v e s p un i s hme nt, r ega rdl ess ofwh etherthe defe nd ant co m m i tte d the char ged cri m e. Giv en the i nfl am m ato rynat u re ofthe evi dence, the di str i ct c ourtneeded to kno w wh at w as i n the photogr aphs and v id eo s in or der fori t t o proper l y e xerci se i ts disc re ti on under Rul e 403. W i thout l oo ki ng at the v i deos f o ri ts el f, the c o ur t co ul d no t ha ve ful l y a ss es se d the potenti alprej ud i ce t o Loughry and w ei ghed i t a gainst th e e vid en c e’s p ro b a tiv e v alu e. SeeCurtin , 48 9 F

. 3d at 958 ( “One cann ot evaluate i n a Rul e 4 03 conte xt wh at on e h a s n otse en or re ad .”). W e t h er efo re h old th at, in li gh t o fthe e vi den ce i n thi s ca se , the di st r i ctc ou rt abused i ts disc re ti on under Rul e 4 03 w hen i t f ai l ed to re vi ew the chal l enged vi deos bef or e they w er e a dm i tte d i n evi dence.

3. I nad equ acy ofExpl anat i on The dis tr i ct c ourtal so er re d i n f ai l i ng to expl ai n how i t ba l an ce d the Rul e 40 3 f ac tor s. Dur i ngt r i al, the co ur t ex pl aine d i ts de ci si o n n o t to e xc l ude the evi dence und erR u le 403 as f ol l ows: “[ t] he Courtdoes l oo k a t th e bal anci ng te st und er40 3 a nd fi nd s that eve n und erthat, [ the c hal l enged exhibi ts] i nd eed [c om e] in .” T h e c ou rtlat er m em or ializ ed its d ec isio n in a wri tte n or der, but did noto ffer a n y add i ti onalexpl anatio n, sta tin g on ly: “t h e C o u r t co n d u c te d th e R u le 403 bal anci ng tes t and c oncl ud ed that the pr ob ativ e14 N o. 10

- 2967

va lu e o f th e G ov er n m en t’s ev id en c e w as n otsu b st an tia lly ou tw eig h ed by th e d an ge r of u n fair rec ita tio n .” A pro - f or m a rec itat i on o fthe Rule 403 bal anci ng te st does not al l ow an appell ate co urt to condu c t a pr o perr ev i ew o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s an aly si s. In U nited St at e s v . Ci e s i ol ka , we hel d that adi str i ct c ourter re d when i t f ai l ed to a r ti cul at e i ts r ea so ni ngi n c o ns i der i ng a Ru le 403 cha ll en ge. 614 F.3d 347, 357 (7th Cir. 2010). W e s a i d: [ T] he di st r i ctcou rtabus ed i ts di sc r et i o n in f ai l i ng to pr o po und r ea so ns f o ri ts c o nc l us i o n tha t th e proba ti ve val ue o fthe [ disputed evi dence] was not su bsta nti al l y o utw ei ghed by the r i sk ofunfa ir pr ej udi ce . W e ha ve r ev i ewe d the t r an sc r i pt
. . . b ut cou ld fi nd no p o r t io n w ithin it w he re the cou rt ex pl aine d i ts b ar e-bo ne s co nc l us i o n th at“ th e p ro b at ive va lu e o f t h e ev id en c e is n otsu b st an tia lly ou tw eig h ed by th e d an ge r of u n fair p rej u d ice .” Id. H er e, s i m i l ar l y, the c o ur t er r ed in n ot ex pl aini ngwhy i t be l i eve d that the probati ve val ue o ft h e chal l enged ex hibi ts was no t o ut wei g he d b y the r i sko funf ai rpr ej ud ice

. Se ei d.

4 . Pr o ba t i v e Va l ue Su bs t a nt i a l l yOutwe i g he d b y R i sk ofU nfai rPre j ud i ce Lo ughr y a l so c o nt en ds th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t substa ntively erred i n f ind ing tha t the cha ll en ged eviden ce’s proba ti ve val ue was not substa nti al l y o utw ei ghed by the r i sk ofunfa i r prej ud i ce. Loughryco ncedes thatN o. 10

- 2967 15 the pornogr aphy f ound in h is hom e had so m e pr obat i ve val ue. The go vern m en t expla i ned to the c ourtthat i t a nti ci pated Loughrywould cl ai m thathe was on ly in te re st ed in t h e a d u lt p or n og ra p h y d i s p lay ed in th e C ach e. W e agree that L ou gh ry’s p ossess ion of a p ers o n a lc o l l e c t i o n o fc h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y i n h i s h o me was r el ev an t to s ho w tha t hi s r ea lpur po se for j o i ni ng the Cach e was to acc ess chi l d pornog ra phy and not ad u lt p or n og ra p h y. R o gers , 5 87F

. 3d a t 82 1 ( ex pl aini ng i n the conte xt o fanal ogo us Rule 41 3 that, “[p] ri ori nstance s ofse xual m i sco nd uct w ith a chi l d vi cti m m ay est abl i sh a defendant’s se xual i nter esti n chi l dren and ther eby se rv e a s e vid en c e o f th e d efe n d an t’s m o t ive to co m m it a char ged o ffense i nv olv ing the se xual explo i tat i on ofchi l dren. ”) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks and ci tat i on om itted ). H o wev er, a s Lo ughr y po i nt s o ut, the pr o ba ti ve v alue of th e po r no g r a ph y f o un d i n hi s ho m e was som ew hat r educed because the g ove rnm ent c harg ed hi m w i th di str ibuti on, and not posse ssi on, o fchi l d pornog

ra phy. That Loughr y j oi ned th e Cache to acc ess chi l d pornog ra phy onl y weakly s up port s the i nfe re nce thath e i nt e nd e d t o a l s o di s t r ib ut e tha tp o r no g r a phy. This concl usi on i s undersc or ed bythe f act that onl y 1 00 ofthe 536 user s o fthe Cache eve r advert i sed o r dist ributed chi l d pornogr aphy. M or eov er, none of the im ages th at L ou gh ry w as ch arged w ith distribu ting w ere poste d by hi m , and Loughrywas not accused o fdi str ibuti ng o r posting any of the pornogr aphy f ound in hi s ho m e. The proba ti ve val ue o fthe “har d c or e” chi l d pornog ra phy, i n part i cul ar, was fu rther dim i ni shed beca use i t was16 N o. 10

- 2967 unli ke the pornogr aphy thatwas dis pla yed in the Cache. Cf. U nite d S t at e s v. Ll oyd, 71 F. 3d 1256 , 12 64 ( 7th Cir

. 19 95) ( “[ W ]h en evi dence i s o ffer ed to pro ve i ntent, the degre e of si m i l ar i ty i s re l evant onl y i nsof ar as the a c t s a r e s uffi c i e nt l y a l i k e t o s up po r ta n i nfe r ence of cri m i nali ntent
. . . . ”) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. Yo rk, 93 3 F.2 d 13 4 3 , 1 35 1 (7 th C ir. 19 91 ); see U ni t e d S t at e s v. G uardia , 1 35 F

. 3d 13 26 , 1 33 1 ( 10 thCi r . 1 99 8) ( no ting th at“ th e si m i l ar i tyo fthe pr i o ra ct s” to th e ac ts a t i ss ue i n the c as e i s a f ac to rt o b e co ns i der ed i n det er m i ni ng th eir p ro b at ive va lu e). T h e s c op e o f th e c on sp ira c y in thi s ca se w as l i m i ted to the di str ibuti on o fchi l d pornog ra phy f ound in the Cache. S i nce the C ache ha d r ul es s pec i fi cal l y b anni ng“ ha r d c o r e” po r no g r aphy and the g ove rnm en t d oe s not s ugges t that these rul es wer e vi o l at ed, Lo ughr y ’ s po ss es si o n ofsuc h po r no g r aphy was o nl y mar g i na l l y, i fa t al l, r el ev an t to w he th er he i ntended to j oi n a c onspi ra cy to dist ribute the kind o f pornog ra phy displ aye d i n the Cache. Du ring tr i al, the gov er nm ent e xplained to the j ud ge that Loughry had stat ed that he would l eave o ther boar ds w hen he r eal i zed thattheyco ntai ned “h ard cor e” pornog ra phy. So , the go vernm ent ar gued, it w anted to show that Loughr y al so posse sse d “ hard cor e” pornog ra phy because “we need to be abl e t o show he has s tuffe v e n he de fi ne s a s i l l e g a l

. ” Bu tLo ughry n e v e rma de this argum ent a t t ri al

. Loughry ’ s s tat em ent, m ade at th e tim e ofhi s a rr est, was that “hi s o nl y functi on o n the Cache w as banni ng peopl e f orpost i ng chi l d pornog ra phy. ” Loughr y a l so tol d a go vernm ent a gent i n re sponse to the quest i on , “ H ow d o yo u define ‘ chi l d pornog ra phy’?”N o. 10

- 2967 17 that he tho ught chi l d porn ogr aphy cons i ste d of“i m age s ofyo ung ki ds, m al e a nd fem al e, nake d, doi ng se xual acts , under t h e age of18

. ” The j ury hear d those st ate
m ents onl y b ecause the go vernm ent intro du ced them o ver L ou gh ry ’s o bj ec tio n . For th e gov ernm en t to tellthe j ury ab ou t L ou gh ry’s st a t e me n t s o v e rh i s o bj e c t i o n a n d th e n a r gu e th a tthe “har d cor e” pornog ra phy w as necess ar y t o rebut tho se sta tem ents appears to be no thi ng m or e than a b ackdoo r at te m p t t o b r i n g in th e u n c h ar ge d “h ar d co re ” c h ild pornog ra phy by m anufa cturing a re l evant p urpose f or i t. Even ta ki ng the go vernm ent a t i ts w or d, i t di d not ne ed th e “h ar d co r e” po r no g r aphy b ec au se the “ l as ci vi o us exhi bi ti on” pornog r a ph y Lo ug hr y was c harg ed w ith d ist rib u tin g is p lain ly i l l e g a l . L ou gh ry d id no t at te m pt to a r g ue o th er wi se t o the j ur y . Lo ug hry’s “p er so n al” d efin itio n of “c h ild p or n og ra p h y” sim p ly had no bea ring o n the case . I f the gov er nm ent wanted to hol d Loughry acco u ntabl e forposs ess i ng “har d cor e” c h ild p or n og ra p h y, th en it sh o u ld h av e c h ar ge d h im w i th poss ess i on o fthe vi deos and p h ot ogr aphs i t di sco ver ed i n hi s hom e, inst ead oftryi ng to br i ng in that evi dence i n its c as e f o rdi st r ibut i o n o fthe “ l as ci vi o us e xhibi ti o n” pornog ra phy f ound in the Cache. The m i ni m alprobati ve val ue o fthe “har d cor e” pornog r aph y was fur th err edu ce d b ec au se the g o ve r nm en t ha d a va i l ab l e to i t a su bs ta nt i ala m o unto fpo r no g r aphy fr o m Lo ughr y ’ s ho m e th atwas s i m i l arto th e “l as ci vi o us exhi bi ti on” pornog ra phy Lo ug hr y wa s c ha r ged w i th di str ibut in g. See O ld C hief v . U nited Sta tes , 519 U

. S.18 N o. 10

- 2967 17 2, 1 8 2 -84 (19 97 ) (av aila b ility of ot h er m ea n s o f p ro of is ana ppr o pr i at e f ac to rt o c o ns i deri n de te r m i ni ngthe relevan ce of an item of evid en ce). I n contr ast, the ri sk ofunfa i r prej ud i ce t o Loughry fro m the a d m iss ion o fthe “har d cor e” pornog ra phy w as substa nti al

. Evi dence i s unduly prej ud i ci ali fi t cr eat es a g enui ne ri sk that the em oti ons ofthe j ury w i l lbe exci ted to i rr ati onalbehav i or, and the ri sk i s di spro port i onate to the p ro b ati ve val ue o fthe offer ed evi dence. See G o nz a lez -Flo res , 41 8 F

. 3d at 1098

. The “har d cor e” vi deo excerp ts sho w n to the j ury i n thi s ca se displ aye d m enr apinga nd ej ac ul at i ngi n the g en i ta l s o fpr epube sc en t gi rl s, as wellas yo ung gi rl s e ng ag ing in sexualact s w i th ea ch other. S uch displ ay s h av e a st ro ng te nd ency to p ro d u c e in te n se d isg u st
. See C u r t i n , 489 F. 3d at 964 ( K l ei nfe l d, J

. , concurr i ng) ( “Per ver se sexual fa ntasi es g en er at e . . . i nt en se di sgus t. ”)

. The hi g hl y di sturbing co nt e nto fthe v i de o s wo ul d u nque s t i o nab l y have m ade Lou ghryappear m or e despi cabl e t o the j ury than the “ l asci vi ous exhibi ti on” pornog ra phy that Loughry w as c h ar ge d w ith d ist rib u tin g. Se ei d. at95 7 (s to r i e s o f ch ild engag i ng in or alco pu l ati on a nd m as tu rba ti on with dog w er e “ d an ge ro u sly p re j u d icia l”); U ni t e dSt at e s v. G rim es , 24 4 F

. 3d 375, 38 4- 85 ( 5th Ci r. 20 01) ( i ntro du cti on ofnar ra ti ves ofvi ol ent r ape i nvol vi ng y oung g i rl s was unfai rl y prej ud i ci al because the defe nd ant had been ch ar ged o nl y wi thpo ss es singno n- vi o l en t “l as ci vi o us ex hibi ti o n” c hi l d po r no g r aphy a nd the g o ve r nm en t h ad oth er “la sc ivio u s e x h i b i t i o n ” p o rn og ra p h y it c ou ld h av e u se d ); Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Me r i n o - B a l d e r ra ma , 14 6 F.3 d 758, 76 3 ( 9th Ci r. 19 98) ( al l owing the j ury toN o. 10

- 2967 19 vi ew m or e than ten m i nutes of a fi l m ofchi l dren e ngage d i n g r aph i c se xua l con ductwi tho th erc hi l dr ena nd wi tha dul ts was unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci alg i ve n tha t th e defen dan t st i pul at ed to the movi e’ s con ten ts a nd the g o ve r nm en t co ul d ha ve s ho wn th e j ur y the movi e’ s cover); U nited St a t e s v . Ha rvey, 991 F.2d 981 , 996 (2d Cir. 19 93 ) ( admi ss i o n o f tes ti m o ny abo utv i deo s depi ct i ng p e o p l e “ e n g a g i n gi n b e s t i a l i ty a n d s a d o ma s o c h i s m” cr e a t e d “ d i s g u s ta n d a n t a g o n i s m” t o wa r d th e d e fe n dan t an d resulted i n “ov erw he lm ing p rej ud ice” againsthim ). F ur th eri nc r ea singthe r i sko fprej udi ce t o Lo ughr y, the g o ve r nm en t i nt r o duce d the “ ha r d c o r e” po r no g r aphy d uring the tes tim ony of its final w itness , shortly before th e j ury w as ex cu sed to de lib e r a te. T he j ury th erefore enter ed i ts del iber ati ons und erthe em oti onali m pact o f the unchar g e d v i de o s , whi c h we r e much w or se th an anyt hin g i n th e C ach e. G iven th e highly infl am m atory conte nt o fthe “har d cor e” pornogr ap h y in com pari son to its sl ight p robative val ue , w e find that the d istri ct cou rt abused i ts disc re ti on i n concl ud i ng that i ts p robati ve val ue was not substa nti al l y o utw ei ghed by the r i sk of unfai r prej ud i ce.

B . Ad mi s s i o n o f“ Ha r d Co r e ” Po rn o g r a p h yNo tHa r ml ess Er r or “T he t es t f o rha r m les s er r o ri s whethe r, i n the min d of th e a ve ra ge j u ro r, th e p ro se c u ti o n ’ s ca se w ou ld have been si gni fi cantl y les s persuas i ve had the i m proper evi dence bee n excl ud ed. ” U nited Sta tes v. B l a nc ha rd, 542 F. 3d 1133 , 11 51 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t ates20 N o. 10

- 2967

v. Em e rs on , 50 1 F

. 3d 804, 81 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)). “A n er ro r i s harm l ess i fthe untai nted i ncri m i nati ng ev i dence i s o ver w hel m i ng. ” U n i t e d S ta tes v. M a cey, 8 F. 3d 462, 467 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( quoti ng U nite d State s v. M anga nel lis , 864 F.2d 528, 539 (7th Cir. 1988)). W e re centl y sta ted that“a [ dist ri ct c ourt ’ s] ‘ perfunctor y’ consi deration of [ the Rul e 4 03 tes t]

. . . m ay i n i tse l fbe gr ounds f orr eve rs al

. ” Cie s i ol ka , 61 4 F

. 3d at 357 ( discussing the Rule 403 prong ofRule 40 4( b) )

. A nd al though a l i m i tingi ns truct i o n may i n c er ta i n c as es c ur e th e pr ej ud ice to a d efe n d an t, s e ei d. a t 35 8, i n thi s ca se nei ther p ar ty as ke d for a n i n st ru c tio n w h en th e o bj ec tio n ab le vid eo s w er e in tr od u c ed , an d th e d ist r i c t co u rtd id not provi de one. The co urt gave a li m i ti ng instr ucti on du ring its char ge to the j ury, but that i nstr ucti on w as bo ilerp lat e a n d d id n otrem i n d th e jur y th at it coul d convi ct o nl y forthe offen se s c h ar ged in the i nd i ctm en t. In l ighto fthe hi g hl y pr ej udi ci alna tu r e o fthe “har d cor e” pornog ra phy and i ts m i ni m alprobati ve val ue, w e ca nnot co ncl ud e that the prej ud i ce t o Loughry w as c u re d by a sin gle , ba re bo n es ins tr u c tio n . Se ei d. at35 8- 59 ( pr ej udi ce no t cur ed bys i ng l e bo i l er pla te l i m i ting instru ction). Further, w h il e there m ay have been enough e vi dence to con v ic t L o ug hry, the evid en ce w as far from “overwhel m i ng, ” as th e g o ve r nm en t co nt en ds. The g o ve r nm en t obt ai ned a l ot of ev i dence f ro m the Cache, i nc l udi ngs ev eral w r i tt enpo st s fr o m Lo ughr y tha nk i ng othe r m em ber s forpost ing i m age s o fchi l d pornog ra phy. E v e n s o , th e g ov er n m en t c ou ld n otid en tify a sin gleN o. 10

- 2967 21 i m age o fchi l d pornog ra ph y a ctual l y pos ted byLoughry

. Since on ly abou t 100 of the C ach e’s 536 m e m b e rs actual l y a dvert i sed o r dist ributed chi l d pornog ra phy, th e j ur y co ul d ha ve con clud ed that Lou gh ry m er ely d own l oaded porno gr aphy poste d by o ther s. And whi l e Lo ughry ’ s s t a tus a s a n a dmi ni s t r ato r of the Cache hel ps to sugge st that he al so i ntended to dist ribute c hi l d pornog ra phy, the gov er nm e nt does notar gue that b ein g a n ad m in ist ra to r on su c h a sit e n ec es sa rily m ea ns tha t a per so n i s g ui l tyo f di st r ibut i ng o ra dve r ti sing ch i l d po r no g r aph y o ro fc o ns pi r i ngt o do so. In l i g ht of th e n at u r e o ft h e g ov er n m en t’s ca se an d th e h igh ly i nfl am m ato rynatur e o fthe “har d cor e” porno gr aphy, the a dm i ssi on o fthe “har d cor e” porn ography was not harm l ess .
I I I . C ONC L US I ON The j ud gm en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s R EV ERS ED an d th is case i s R EMAND ED f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs c onsi ste nt with th i s o pi ni o n.

10- 11- 11