# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 13 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ja y m e Nat ha ni el W al ke r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 18

Fi le d: Marc h 6 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, KELLY , and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Ja y m e W al ke r m et W .F., who was fo ur te en at th e ti m e, “ on a so ci al m ed ia si te

fo r gu y s se ek in g ot he r pe op le .” W .F. fal se ly cl ai m ed th at he was ei gh te en y ears ol d

to joi n th e si te

, bu t he tol d W al ke r th at he was fo ur te en

. The two ex ch an ge d sex ua l

m es sa ge s an d im ag es on th e web si te an d by te xt m es sa ge

. The co m m un ic at io nsbe ga n in Ju ne 20 13 an d en de d in Feb ru ary 20 14 whe n W .F.’s m ot he r di sc ov ered th e

ex ch an ge s an d a po li ce i nv es ti ga ti on be ga n.

W al ke r waiv ed in di ct m en t and was ch arg ed by in fo rm at io n with fo ur co un ts

. The Gov ern m en t la te r di sm is se d on e co un t. Fo ll owi ng tri al

, a jury fo un d hi m gu il ty

on th e rem ai ni ng th ree co un ts : (1 ) 18 U.S.C. § 14 70

, Tran sf er of Obs cen e Mat eri al s

to a Mi no r; (2 ) 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) an d (b )(1 ), Rec ei pt of Ch il d Po rn og rap hy; an d

(3 ) 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a), Sex ua l Exp lo it at io n of a M i n o r

. The di st ric t co ur t 1

se nt en ced W al ke r to 26 4 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

W al ke r no w ap pe al s. He c l a i ms t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by refu si ng to

ad m it ev id en ce of W .F.’s se xu al co nv ers at io ns wit h ot he r m en

. He arg ue s fu rth er th at

th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g ev id en ce ab ou t th e so ur ce of W al ke r’s fan ta si es

an d in li m it in g hi s cro ss -ex am in at io n of th e vi ct im

. H e a l s o c o n t en ds th e di st ric t

co ur t ab us ed it s d i s c r e t io n by fai li ng to req ui re kn owl ed ge of th e vi ct im ’s ag e in a jury in st ru ct io n an d by de nyi n g h i s moti on fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

. Fi na ll y , he

arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce co ns ti tu te s cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t in vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. We con si de r eac h o f th es e arg um en ts in tu rn an d a ffi rm

.

I.

A.

“ W e rev i e w a di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e ru le s of

ev id en ce de no vo an d it s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es

v. St re et

, 53 1 F.3 d 70 3, 70 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). “ Howev er, w e r e vi ew ev id en ti ary

The Hon or ab le Ro se an n A. Ketc hm ark

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f or th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i

-2

-ru li ng s de no vo whe n th ey im pl ic at e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” Uni te d St at es v. Pump ki n

Se ed , 57 2 F .3d 55 2, 5 58 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

Fi rs t, W al ke r arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it ex cl ud ed ev id en ce of

W .F.’s se xu al co m

m un ic at io ns wit h ot he r m en

. In a cas e in vo lv in g “ al le ge d sex ua l

m is co nd uc t

, ” t h e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e pr oh ib it th e ad m is si on of ev id en ce

“ of fere d to pr ov e th at a vi ct im en ga ge d in ot he r se xu al be ha vi or ” or “ ev id en ce of fere d

to pr ov e a vi ct im ’s se xu al pr ed is po si ti on .” Fed

. R. Evi d. 41 2( a)(1 ), (2 ). Bu t th e ru le

co nt ai ns th ree ex cep ti on s fo r cri m in al cas es

. Fed

. R. Evi d. 41 2( b)

. Onl y th e fir st an d

th ird ex cep ti on s are at is su e he re. The fir s t e x cep ti on al lo ws “ ev id en ce of sp eci fic

in st an ces of a vi ct im ’s s ex ua l be ha vi or , i f of fere d to pr ov e th at so m eo ne ot he r th an

th e de fen da nt was th e so ur ce of se m en , in jury, or ot he r ph y si cal ev id en ce.” Fed

. R.

Evi d. 41 2( b) (1 )(A). The th ird ex cep ti on al l o w s “ ev id en ce who se ex cl us io n wou ld

vi ol at e d efen da nt ’s con st it ut io na l ri gh ts .” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 12 (b )(1 )(C)

.

W al ke r arg ue s th at th e fir st ex cep ti on ap pl ie s in th is cas e “ be cau se th e im ag es

se nt by [W. F. to W al ke r] co ul d ha ve be en of hi m se lf or ot he r pe op le

, or bo th .” And

he sa y s th e im ag es “ co ul d ha ve be en pr ep ared by [W. F.] fo r an ot he r pe rs on or du rin g

an ot he r co nv ers at io n wit h so m eo ne el se ,” rat he r th an at Wa l ke r’s in du cem en t.

W al ke r so ug ht to “ ad du ce ev id en ce t ha t [W.F.] in it ia te d c om m un ic at io n wit h ot he r

ad ul ts th ro ug h ag e

- r es tri ct ed web si te s; an d se nt nu de ph ot og rap hs us in g ag eres tri ct ed web si te s, du rin g th e sa m e ti m e th at he is al le ge d to ha ve co m m un ic at ed

wit h Defen da nt .” The di st ric t co ur t qu es ti on ed th e rel ev an ce of th e co m m un ic at io ns

an d ob se rv ed th at W al ke r ap pe ared to be arg ui ng th at “ ex pl oi ta ti on by th is de fen da nt

is n’t as ba d be cau se lo ts of fo lk s were ex pl oi ti ng [W. F.].” It th en e x cl ud ed th e

co m m un ic at io ns

.

W e fin d no ba si s fo r co nc lu di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in

ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce. The fir st ex cep ti on to Ru le 41 2 al lo ws “ ev id en ce of sp eci fic

in st an ces of a vi ct im ’s s ex ua l be ha vi or , i f of fere d to pr ov e th at so m eo ne ot he r th an

-3

-th e de fen da nt w a s t h e s o u rce of

. . . ot he r ph y si cal ev id en ce.” Bu t he re, W al ke r

so ug ht to qu es ti on W .F. ab ou t th e ge ne ral fact th at he h a d i n i ti at ed se xu al

co nv ers at io n s w i t h an d se nt im ag es of hi m se lf to ot he r pe op le

. He di d no t se ek to

in tro du ce “ sp eci fic in st an ces ” th at in di cat ed th at ot he rs ha d in du ced W .F. to pr od uc e

th e im ag es th at W .F. la te r se nt to W al ke r. In st ead

, W al ke r arg ue d th at th e ev id en ce

he so ug ht to in tro du ce sh owe d th at W .F. “ was in it ia ti ng wit h ev erybod y

. Thi s is wha t

he di d. Thi s was hi s ho bb y wit h ev erybod y .” Thu s, it was no t an ab us e of di sc ret io n

fo r th e di st ric t cou rt to ex cl ud e th e ev id en ce. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ogd en , 68 5 F .3d

60 0, 60 4- 05 (6 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ex cl ud in g ev id en ce of th e vi ct im ’s ch at lo gs wit h ot he r

m en off ered by the de fen da nt to sh ow th at “ on e of th os e m en m ig ht ha ve ori gi na ll y

pe rs ua de d th e vi ct im to ta ke th e ex pl ic it pi ct ur es ” in a § 22 51 cas e be cau se Ru le

41 2( a)(1 ) “ fo rb id s th e in tro du c t i o n o f ‘evi de nc e of fere d to pr ov e th at a vi ct im

en ga ge d i n o th er s ex ua l b eh av io r’”).

W al ke r al so arg ue s th at th e th ird Ru le 41 2 ex cep ti on a p p l i e s in th is cas e

be ca use ev idence th at W .F. “ se nt an d rece iv ed nu m ero us se xu al co m m unica tio ns w ith

a nu m be r of pe op le du rin g th e sa m e pe rio d of ti m e he se xt ed App el la n t di rect ly

co nt rad ic ts ” an el em en t of Co un t Thre e: th at W al ke r us ed

, pe rs ua de d, in du ced

, or

en ti ced W .F. to pr od uc e th e im ag e. 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a). W al ke r cl a i ms th at th e

ex cl us io n of th e ev id en ce th us vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth an d Si x t h A men dm en t rig ht s to

“ in tro du ce ev id en ce i n h is own de fen se .”

W he n co ns id eri ng whe th er ev id en c e i s ad m is si bl e un de r Ru le 41 2( b) (1 )(C)

,

“ we st art wit h th e pr em is e th at de fen da nt s ha ve a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht un de r th e Fi fth

an d Si xt h Am en dm en ts to in tro du ce ev id en ce in th ei r de fen se .” Pump ki n Se ed

, 57 2

F .3d at 55 9. Bu t th e rig ht “ is no t wit ho ut li m it at io n.” Id

. at 56 0. “ [T]he k e y

in qu iry

. . . is whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex cl us io n of ev id en ce

. . . was arb it rary or

di sp ro po rti on at e to th e pu rp os es th at it s ex cl us io n was de si gn ed to se rv e.” Id

. Here,

th e di st ric t co ur t “ sa ve d [W. F.] fro m th e ha ras sm en t an d em ba rras sm en t co nc om it an t

wit h di sc us si ng th e de ta il s” of hi s se xu al co nv ers at io ns wit h ot he r m en

. Se e id

. And

,

-4

-as ex pl ai ne d a b o v e , Wa lk er so ug ht to in tro du ce ev id en ce of W .F.’s se xu al hi st or y ,

rat he r th an “ sp eci fic in st an ces ” in di cat in g th at ot he rs ha d in du ced W

. F

. t o p r o du ce

th e im ag es th at W .F. se nt to W al k e r

. Th u s , th e ex cl us io n of th e ev id en ce was no t

“ arb it rary or di sp ro po rti on at e to th e pu r p o se s th at it s ex cl us io n was de si gn ed to

se rv e.” Id . The d is tri ct co ur t di d no t vi ol at e W al ke r’s Fi fth an d Si xt h Am en dm en t
rig ht s by ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce of W .F.’s se xu al co m m un ic at io ns wit h ot he r m en

. 2

Seco nd

, W al ke r arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g “ fan ta sy so ur ce

m at eri al .” W al ke r m ai nt ai ne d at tri al th at he be li ev ed th at W .F. was an ad ul t an d th at

he an d W .F. were a c t i n g o u t a fan ta sy. In su pp or t of th at arg um en t, he so ug ht to

ad m it an ex hi bi t co nt ai ni ng pa ge s fro m a web si te fro m whi ch W al ke r fo un d “ so ur ce

m at eri al ” fo r fan ta si es th at he pl ay ed ou t in co nv ers at io ns on so ci al m ed ia si te s li ke

th e on e on whi ch he m et W .F. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e ex hi bi t was no t

he lp fu l or pr ob at i v e a n d th at it wou ld be co nf us in g to th e jury. The ex hi bi t is a

twel ve -p ag e li st of cat eg or ie s in to whi ch th e web s it e gr ou pe d fan ta sy st or ie s.

A l t h o u g h it was no t ad m it te d in to ev id en ce, W al ke r was pe rm it te d to te st ify ab ou t

th is in fo rm at io n. He ex pl ai ne d th at th e web si te he us ed co nt ai ne d “ cat eg or ie s” of

inf or m at ion

, inc lud ing “ athl et ic s,” “ be st ia li ty

, ” “ ce le br ity

, ” an d a “ cr oss -g en er at ion al ”

cat eg or y th at “ de al s wit h ol de r gu y s an d y ou ng er gu y s.” W al ke r al so te st ifi ed th at th e

web si te is “ a hu ge li st in g of an y po ss ib le sc en ari o th at y ou can th in k of in th e ero ti ca

wor ld .” Thu s, an y erro r is ha rm le ss be cau se th e ex hi bi t was cu m ul at iv e. Se e

Wa l k e r arg ue s fu rth er th at W .F.’s te st im on y op en ed th e do or to cro ss

2

ex a mi n a t i o n of sp eci fic in st an ces of W .F.’s se xu al be ha vi or

. Dur in g W .F.’s

t e s ti m on y , th e Gov ern m en t as ke d, “ And di d y ou se ek at te nt io n fro m th es e m en ? ”

W .F. an swe red

, “ I di d.” Bu t in i t s v e ry ne xt qu es ti on , th e Gov ern m en t fo cu se d it s in qu iry on W al ke r by as ki ng , “ And di d J a ym e W al ke r gi ve y ou at te nt io n? ” The

Gov ern m en t’s su bs eq ue nt qu es ti on s si m il arl y fo cu se d on W al ke r. Thu s, th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by co nt in ui ng to ex cl ud e th e ev id en ce be cau se th e Gov ern m en t di d no t m ak e “ un fai r pr ejud ic ia l us e of rel at ed ev id en ce o n d i r e c t

ex am in at io n.” Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Du rh am , 86 8 F .2d 10 10 , 10 12 (8t h C ir. 1 98 9)

.

-5

-M

c Wi l l i a m s v. Uni te d St at es , 3 94 F.2 d 41 , 4 5- 46 (8 th Ci r. 19 68 ) (“ [I]n vi ew of t h e

cu m ul at iv e na tu re of th e reject ed ev id en ce, it s de ni al can ha rd ly be sa id to ha ve

pr ejud ic ed th e ap pe ll an t.”) ; Uni te d St at es v. Ta pi o , 63 4 F.2 d 10 92

, 10 94 -9 5 (8 th Ci r.

19 80 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ The co ur t’s erro r, if an y , in e xc lu di ng th e ev id en ce was

ha rm le ss

. . . . The e xc lu de d t es ti m on y was m erel y

cu m ul at iv e.”).

B.

W al ke r ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in pl aci ng a ti m e li m i t o n hi s

cro ss -ex am in at io n of W .F. The di st ric t co ur t li m it ed W al ke r’s cro ss -ex am in at io n to

on e ho ur an d th irt y mi n u t e s , f o ur ti m es th e le ng th of th e Gov ern m en t’s di rect

ex am in at io n. In th e pa st

, we ha ve ap pl ie d co m pe ti ng st an da rd s of rev ie w. Co mpa re

Uni te d St at es v. W

ar fi el d

, 97 F.3 d 10 14

, 10 24 (8 Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ Abs en t a cl ear ab us e th

of di sc ret io n an d a sh owi ng of pr ejud ic e, we wil l no t rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng

li m it in g cro ss -ex am in at io n of a pr os ecu ti on wit ne ss on th e ba si s th at it im pe rm is si bl y

in fri ng ed up on th e de fen da nt ’s rig ht of co nf ro nt at io n.” ) wi th Uni te d St at es v. Plu me , 84 7 F.3 d 62 4, 62 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (“ Thi s co ur t rev ie ws ev id en ti ary ru li ng s reg ard in g

th e sc op e of a cro ss ex am in at io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, bu t whe re th e Co nf ro nt at io n

Cl au se is im

pl ic at ed

, we co ns id er th e m at te r de no vo .” (in te rn al qu ot at i o n m ark s

om it te d) ). The o ut co m e is th e sa m e u nd er ei th er s ta nd ard

.

“ A cri ti cal fact or in de te rm in in g whe th er a de fen da nt ’s rig ht of co nf ro nt at io n

ha s be en vi ol at ed is whe th er th e de fen da nt ha d ot he r way s to ob ta in th e effe ct th at th e

ex cl ud ed ex am in at io n wou ld ha ve al le ge dl y es ta b l i s h e d

. ” Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , 11 0 F.3 d 60 5, 61 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y no te d th at m os t of th e

cro ss -ex am in at io n ha d be en sp en t cu m ul at iv el y read in g an ex h ib it co nt ai ni ng th e

te xt s be twee n W .F. an d W al ke r th at ha d be en ad m it te d i nt o e vi de nc e an d wo ul d b e

av ai la bl e to th e jury. And it co nc lu de d th at it was “ no t effi ci en t to go th ro ug h a

le ng th y 26 4- pa ge do cu men t.” Fu rth er, W al ke r pr es en ts no ev id en ce th at th e ti m e

-6

-li m it pr ejud ic ed hi m

. Se e Har ri ng to n v . Iow a , 10 9 F.3d 12 75

, 12 77 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )

( r e q u iri ng a de fen da nt to sh ow th at “ [a] reas on ab le jury m ig ht ha ve rece iv ed a

si gn ifi can tl y di ffer en t im

pr es si on of [th e wit ne ss ’] cred ib il it y ha d [d efen se ] co un se l

be en pe rm it te d to pu rs ue hi s pr op os ed li ne of cro ss ex am in at io n” (al te rat io n in

or ig in al )). Thu s, we wi ll no t re ve rs e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ru li ng

.

C.

In ad di ti on , W al ke r arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by no t

in st ru ct in g th e jury th at W al ke r ha d to kn ow th at W .F. was a mi n o r a s he cl ai m s is

req ui red fo r a co nv ic ti on un de r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 22 51 (a). “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s

fo rm ul at io n of jury in st ru ct io ns fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n an d co ns id er whe th er th e

in st ru ct io ns co rrec tl y st at e th e ap pl ic ab le la w.” Uni te d St at es v. Pli eg o , 57 8 F.3 d 93 8,

94 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld th at

a “ di st r i c t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in refu si ng to in st ru ct th e jury th at

kn owl ed ge of th e vi ct i m’s a g e i s an el em en t of § 22 51 (a).” Id

. at 94 3. Thu s, th e

di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n h ere. 3

D.

W al ke r fu rth er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r jud g men t of acq ui tt al

. He co nt en ds th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t

hi s co nv ic ti on be cau se “ al l ev id en ce of gu il t or ig in at ed fro m a pl at fo rm of fan ta sy.”

W e ha ve als o p rev io us ly hel d t ha t th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t’s rest ric ti on ag ai ns t 3

ch il l i n g pr ot ect ed sp eech “ do es no t req ui re a reas on ab le -m is ta ke -o f-ag e de fen se to
ch arg es of pr od uc in g ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of se ct io n 22 51 (a).” Uni te d

St at es v. W

i l s o n , 5 6 5 F

. 3d 10 59

, 10 69 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e th us reject W al ke r’s

a rg um en t th at a m is ta ke -o f-ag e de fen se sh ou ld ha ve be en in cl ud ed in th e ju r y in st ru ct io ns he re. See Pli eg o , 57 8 F .3d at 9 43 –4 4.

-7

-S p e c i f

i c al ly, W al ke r cl ai m ed in hi s m ot io n th at al l of th e ph ot og rap hs he rece iv e d

fro m W .F. were of a “ po st -p ub es cen t m al e” an d th at it was “ im po ss ib le ” to kn ow,

b a s e d on th os e im ag es , th at W .F. was le ss th an th e req ui red ag e. He arg u e d t h a t 4

“ th ere was no li nk b e t w e en Defen da nt an d th e real it y th at th e vi ct im was in fact a

m in or , ot he r th an th e st at em en ts m ad e

. . . th at fro m Defen da nt ’s pe rs pe ct iv e were

fan ta st ic al .”

“ W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de nov o, vi ewin g evi de nc e in th e

li gh t m os t fa

vo rab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e go ve rn m en t’s fav or ,

an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v.

Piwo wa r , 4 92 F.3 d 95 3, 9 5 5 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 07 ). “ W e m us t up ho ld th e ve rd ic t if th ere

is an in te rp ret at io n of th e ev id en ce th at wou ld al lo w a reas on ab le -m in de d jury to fin d

th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le d o u b t .” Uni te d St at es v. W ai nr ig ht

, 35 1

F.3 d 8 16 , 82 2 (8 th Cir . 20 03 ).

W al ke r co m

m un ic at ed wit h W .F. fo r ap pr ox im at el y ei gh t m o n t h s. W .F.

te st ifi ed th at he to ld W al ke r th at he was fo ur te en , an d he te st ifi ed th at he di d no t th in k

hi s c o mm u ni cat io ns wit h W al ke r were ba se d on fan ta sy. W .F. al so se nt W al ke r a

m es sa ge ab ou t wor ki ng on ho m ewo rk an d an ot he r ab ou t at te nd in g th e ho m eco m in g

da nc e. Fu rth er, W al ke r’s own m es sa ge s su pp or t th e jury’ s fin di ng

. On on e oc cas io n

W al ke r sa id

, “ I can ’t li e. It ki nd of m ak es m e ne r v o u s

. I ’m no t on e of th os e

pe do ph il e gu y s, bu t yo u a re un de rag e an d can ge t m e in tro ub le .” On a di ffer en t

oc cas io n, aft er W .F. as ke d W al ke r to se nd hi m ph ot og rap hs

, W al ke r rep li ed

, “ I do n’t

th in k we sh ou ld th at [s ic ] an y m or e be cau se of ou r ag e di ffer en ce. I can ge t in tro ub le

. So rry .” And th ere is no di sp ut e th at W al ke r an d W .F. se nt each ot he r po rn og rap hi c

im ag es

. Thi s e vi de nc e is su ffi ci en t fo r a reas on ab le jury to co nc lu de th at W al ke r

W hi le W al ke r’s § 22 51 co nv ic ti on di d no t req ui re kn owl ed ge of th e vi ct im ’s 4

ag e, hi s § 14 70 co nv ic ti on di d req ui re kn owl ed ge th at th e vi ct im “ ha s no t at ta in ed th e

ag e o f 16 y ears .” 18 U.S.C. § 1 47 0.

-8

-kn ew th at W .F. was le ss th an si xt een y ears ol d. Se e al so La ven de r v. Ku rn , 32 7 U.S.

64 5, 65 3 (1 94 6) (“ [W] he re, as he re, th ere is an ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r th e jury’ s ve rd ic t,

th e jury is f

r e e t o di sc ard or di sb el ie ve wha te ve r fact s are in co ns is te nt wit h it s

c o n c l us io n.” ). Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g W al ke r’s m ot io n f o r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

E.

Fi na ll y , W al ke r arg ue s th at hi s 26 4- m on th se nt en ce co ns ti tu te s cru el an d

un us ua l pu ni sh m en t in vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. W e rev ie w Eig ht h

Am en dm en t ch al le ng es de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Van ho rn , 74 0 F.3 d 11 66

, 11 69 (8 th

C i r

. 20 14 ). The Eig ht h Am en dm en t do es no t gu aran te e pr op or ti on al it y be twee n

cri m e an d se nt en ce. Se e Har meli n v. Mic hi ga n , 50 1 U.S. 9 57 , 96 5 (1 99 1) . “ [T]his

Co ur t ha s ne ve r he ld th at a se nt en ce wit hi n th e s t a t ut or y ran ge vi ol at es th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Pat te n , 66 4 F.3 d 24 7, 25 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (al te rat io n

in or ig in al ). W al ke r’s se nt en ce is le ss th an th e 36 0- m on th st at ut or y max i mum fo r

W al ke r’s § 22 51 co nv ic ti on

. And we ha ve pr ev io us ly reject ed an Eig ht h Am en dm en t

ch al le ng e to a 36 0- m on th se nt en ce un de r § 22 51

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mar ty ne nk o , 71 7 F. App ’x 64 5, 64 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (p er cu ria m ) (rejec ti ng an Eig ht h Am en dm en t

ch al le ng e to a se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e th at in cl ud ed a 36 0- m on th se nt en ce fo r a § 22 51 (a)

co nv ic ti on ); Pat te n , 66 4 F.3 d at 25 2. Lik ewis e, we reje c t W al ke r’s cl ai m th at hi s

26 4 -m on th se nt en ce co ns ti tu te s cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t in vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t.

II

.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m W al ke r’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e.

-9

-KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I co nc ur in th e co ur t’s op in io n in al l res pe ct s bu t on e. I be li ev e th at th e di st ric t

co ur t’s t i m e li m it at io n on W al ke r’s cro ss -ex am in at io n of W .F. vi ol at ed W al ke r’s

Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht of co nf ro nt at io n. Bu t be cau se I co nc lu de th at th e erro r was

ha rm le ss , I ag ree t ha t t he jud gm en t s ho ul d b e aff irmed.

I

W e rev ie w “ ev id en ti ary ru li ng s re ga rd in g th e sc op e o f a cro ss [-]exa m in at io n

fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, bu t whe re th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se is im

pl ic at ed

, we co ns id er

th e m at te r de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. W hi te Pl um e, 84 7 F.3 d 62 4, 62 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 )

(q uo ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. Will ia m s, 7 96 F.3d 95 1, 9 60 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5) ). The Si xt h 5

Am en dm en t’s Con fro nt at io n C la us e g ua ran te es th at “ [i]n all cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s,

th e accu se d sh al l en

joy th e rig ht

. . . to be co nf ro nt ed wit h th e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t hi m .”

U.S. Co ns t. am en d. VI. “ Gen eral ly sp eak in g, th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se gu aran te es

an op po rt un it y fo r effe ct iv e cro ss -ex am in at io n” ; it do es n o t gu aran te e

“ cro s s

- e x a mina ti on th at is effe ct iv e in wha te ve r way , an d to wha te ve r ex te nt

, th e

de fen se m ig ht wis h.” Dela ware v. Fen st erer , 47 4 U.S. 15

, 20 (1 98 5)

. Acco rd in gl y , th e rig ht to cro ss -ex am in at io n “ m ay , in ap pr op ria te cas es , bo w to acco m m od at e ot he r

le gi ti m at e in te res ts in th e cri m in al tri al pr oc es s.” Mi ch ig an v. Luc as , 50 0 U.S. 14 5,

14 9 ( 1 9 9 1 ) (q uo ti ng Ro ck v. Ark an sa s, 48 3 U.S. 44

, 55 (1 98 7) ). “ [T]rial jud ge s

ret ai n wid e la ti tu de to li m it reas on ab ly a cri m in al de fen da nt ’s rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e

a wit ne ss ba se d on co nc ern s ab ou t, am on g ot he r th in gs , ha ras sm en t, pr ejud ic e,

To th e ex te nt we ha ve ap pl ie d in co ns is te nt st an da rd s of rev ie w to 5

Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se qu es ti on s, a s t h e c ou rt su gg es ts

, it do es no t affe ct m y vi ew. Eve n u nd er an ab us e of di sc ret io n st an da rd

, I wou ld co nc lu de th at th e d is tri ct co ur t

erre d i n l im it in g Walk er’s cro ss -ex am in at io n o f W .F.

-1 0-co nf

us io n of th e is su es , th e wit ne ss ’ sa fet y , or in te rro ga ti on th at is rep et it iv e or on ly

m arg in al ly relev an t.” Id . (cl ean ed up ).

Bu t “ [r]est ric ti on s on a cri m in al de fen da nt ’s rig ht s to co nf ro nt ad ve rs e

wit ne ss es an d to pr es en t e vi de nc e ‘m ay no t be arb it rary or di sp ro po rti on at e to th e

pu rp os es th ey are de si gn ed to se rv e.’” Id

. at 15 1 (q uo ti ng Ro ck

, 48 3 U.S. at 56 ); se e

al so Uni te d St at es v. Bea r St op s, 99 7 F.2 d 45 1, 45 4– 57 (8 th Ci r. 19 9 3 ) ( r e v e r si ng

co nv ic ti on whe re ex cl us io n of te st im on y was di s p r o po rti on at e to th e in te res ts th at

ex cl us io n so ug ht to se rv e). Acco rd in gl y , we m us t ba la nc e th e im

po rta nc e o f t he

ex cl ud ed ev id en ce to W al ke r’s de fen se ag ai ns t th e in te res ts art ic ul at ed by th e di st ric t

co ur t to de te rm in e if th e res tri ct io n was reas on ab le

. See Bo y si ewic k v. Sch rir o, 17 9

F.3 d 61 6, 62 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ); se e al so Old en v. Ken tu ck y , 48 8 U.S. 22 7, 23 2 (1 98 8)

(b al an ci ng re le va

nc e an d im

po rta nc e of im

pe ach m en t ev id en ce ag ai ns t “ [s ]pecu la ti on

as to th e effe ct of juro rs ’ raci al bi as es ” to co nc lu d e t h a t t r i a l co ur t’s li m it at io n on

cro ss -ex am in at io n was “ be y on d re as on ”).

In m y vi ew, th e di st ric t co ur t’s ti m e li m it at io n on W al ke r’s cro ss -ex am in at io n

of W

. F

. w a s b ot h arb it rary an d di sp ro po rti on at e to th e pu rp os e it was de si gn ed to

se rv e. On th is reco rd

, th e res tri ct io n was arb it rary be cau se th ere was no reas on ab le

ex pl an at io n fo r it

. Cf. Uni te d St at es v. Bo rd eau x, 40 0 F.3 d 54 8, 55 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )

(ex pl ai ni ng th at a di st ric t co ur t’s ex cl us io n of ev id en ce was no t “ arb it rary be cau se

th ere ex is ts a reas on ab le ex pl an at io n fo r it —t he pr ev en ti on of ha ras sm en t or

em ba rras sm en t of [ t h e wit ne ss ]”). The re was no cl ai m th at W .F. wou ld ha ve be en

h a r a s s ed ha d W al ke r’s co un se l be en pe rm it te d to co nt in ue hi s pr op os ed cro ss

ex am in at io n. Nor was th ere a cl ai m th at th e te st im on y th at de fen se co un se l so ug ht

to el ic it wou ld be un du l y p r ejud ic ia l or co nf us e th e is su es

. Fi na ll y , th ere was no

cl ai m th at th e co nt en ts of th e cro ss -ex am in at io n were on ly “ m arg in al ly rel ev an t.” To

th e co nt rary, as W al ke r arg ue d bef or e th e di st ric t co ur t an d re it erat es on ap pe al

, hi s

pr im ary de fen se —t h a t h e be li ev ed W .F. was an ad ul t an d th at th ey were m erel y

-1 1-act in g ou t a fan ta sy—lar ge ly d ep en de d on hi s ab il it y to de m on st rat e to th e jury th e

le ng th y hi st or y an d fu ll na tu re o f hi s co m m un ic at io ns wit h W.F.

Rat he r, th e so le in te res t t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t arti cu la te d was in “ effi ci en cy .”

It de te rm in ed th at W al ke r’s rig ht to cro ss -ex am in at io n sh ou ld be ab rid ge d be cau se

hi s m et ho d of pr es en ti ng hi s de fen se was “ no t effi ci en t,” an d be cau se co nt in ue d

di sc us si on ab ou t th e m es sa ge s th at W al ke r ex ch an ge d wit h W .F. wa s “v e ry

cu m ul at iv e” and wou ld pu rp or te dl y co nt rav en e “ [t]he typic al ru le of th um b . .

. th at

cro ss is no t to ex ceed th e ti m e al lo tt e d f o r d i rect .” As a ge ne ral pr op os it io n,

effi ci en cy is a le gi ti m at e in te res t of th e cri m in al tri al pr oc es s. And pr ev en ti ng un du e

de la y an d cu rta il in g te st im on y th at is un ne ce ss ari ly le ng th y can se rv e th at in te res t.

Bu t un de r th e fact s of th is cas e, th ere was no effi ci en cy to be ga in ed

. W al ke r so ug ht

,

at m os t, a to ta l of two ho ur s an d t e n mi n ut es fo r cro ss -ex am in in g W .F.—t he

go ve rn m en t’s ke y wit ne ss —an d th ere is no in di cat io n th at th e tri al wou ld ha ve be en

un ne c e ss ari ly le ng th en ed ha d th e di st ric t co ur t pe rm it te d W al ke r’s de si red

cro ss -ex am in at io n. See Hol le y v. Yarb or ou gh

, 56 8 F.3 d 10 91

, 11 00 (9 th Ci r. 20 09 )

(co nc lu di ng th at ex cl ud in g te st im on y ba se d in pa rt o n ti m e co ns tra in ts was

un reas on ab le be cau se it was un li ke ly th at ad m it ti ng th e te s t i mo n y “ wou ld ha ve

si gn ifi can tl y le ng th en ed th e tri al ”). Mo reo ve r, it can no t be th at a de fen da nt ’s Si xt h

A men dm en t rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e th e pr in ci pa l wit ne ss ag ai ns t hi m sh ou ld b e

c u rta il ed ba se d on th e pr os ecu ti on ’s st rat eg ic de ci si on reg ard in g th e le ng th of it s

di rect ex am in at io n. Und er th e pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e, I be li ev e th at th e

res tri ct io n b as ed on ti m e co ns tra in ts was a rb it rary.

The di st ric t c o u r t ’s ti m e res tri ct io n on W .F.’s cro ss -ex am in at io n was al so

di sp ro po rti on at e to th e in te res t th at it al le ge dl y se rv ed

. It is c r i t i c a l h e r e th at W .F.

was th e “ cen tra l, in de ed cru ci al ,” wit ne ss in th e pr os ecu ti on ’s cas e. Old en , 48 8 U.S.

at 23 3. And it is li ke wis e cri ti cal th at th e le ng th an d m od e of cro ss -ex am in in g W .F.

was pa rt a nd pa rcel of Walk er’s d efen se . Becau se th e g ov ern m en t fo cu se d o n o nl y

-1 2-a ha nd fu l of te xt mes s a ge s to sh ow th at W al ke r kn ew W .F. was a m in or , W al ke r

so ug ht to hi gh li gh t th e en ti ret y of hi s m es sa gi ng wit h W .F. to at te m pt t o s h o w t h at

th e co m m un ic at io ns were “ ro le -p la y fan ta sy an d al so to d i s c o u n t th e cl ai m of

ex pl oi ta ti on .” Mo reo ve r, by cr os s- ex am in in g W .F. ab ou t al l th e m es sa ge s, W al ke r

so ug ht

, in pa rt, to “ at te m

pt [] to fam il ia riz e th e jury wit h wha t fo r th em was a bi zarr e

ex is te nc e.” To th at en d, th e fac t t h a t th e cro ss -ex am in at io n of W .F. se em ed “ ve ry

cu m ul at iv e,” a s t h e d i s tri ct co ur t co nc lu de d, was pr eci se ly t he po in t. “ [I]t was th is

accu m ul at io n o f h i s to ry ,” as W al ke r ex pl ai ns , “ th at es ta bl is he d th e te xt ur e of

W al ke r’s de fen se th at he was li vi ng a fan ta sy.” In li gh t of ho w im po rta nt it was fo r

W al ke r to cro ss -ex am in e W .F. reg ard in g th e fu ll m es sa gi ng hi st or y an d th e ve ry weak

in te res t i n e ffi ci en cy

in th is cas e, th e d is tri ct co ur t’s tim e res tri ct io n was dis pr op or

ti on at e to th e pu rp os e it was d e s i g n ed to se rv e. Cf. Bo rd eau x, 40 0 F.3 d at 55 9
(co nc lu d i n g t ha t ex cl us io n was no t di sp ro po rti on at e “ [i]n li gh t of th e m in im al

pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e ev id en ce an d th e im po rta nt pu rp os e o f th e ex cl us io n” —t he

pr ev en ti on of wit ne ss ha ras sm en t). In sh or t, I be li e v e t h a t t he ti m e li m it at io n on

W al ke r’s cro ss -ex am in at io n of W .F. vi ol at ed W al ke r’s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht of

co nf ro nt at io n.

II

“ All erro rs of co ns ti tu ti on al di m en si on do no t au to m at ic al ly cal l fo r rev ers al ,”

ho wev er. Uni te d St at es v. Jaco bs

, 97 F.3 d 27 5, 28 3 (8t h Cir. 19 96 ). Co nf ro nt at io n

Cl au se erro rs are su bjec t to ha rm le ss -err or rev ie w. See Dela ware v. Van Arsd al l, 47 5

U.S. 67 3, 68 4 (1 9 8 6 )

. Thi s in qu iry req ui res us to “ as su m [e] th at th e da m ag in g

po te nt ia l of th e cro ss -ex am in at io n [was ] fu ll y real iz ed ,” an d de te rm in e if we “ m ig ht

no ne th el es s sa y th at th e erro r was ha rm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id .; se e al so

Uni te d St at es v. Cal dwe ll

, 88 F.3 d 52 2, 52 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 )

. H a r ml e s sn es s is

de te rm in ed “ in th e co nt ex t of th e tri al as a who le ,” Cal dwe ll

, 88 F.3 d at 52 4, an d we

co ns id er “ th e im

po rta nc e of th e wit ne ss ’ te st im on y in th e pr os ecu ti on ’s cas e, whe th er

-1 3-th e te st im on y was cu m ul at iv e, th e pr es en ce or ab se nc e of ev id en ce co rro bo rat in g or

co nt rad ic ti ng th e te st im on y of th e wi t n es s on m at eri al po in ts

, th e ex te nt of

cro ss -ex am in a t i o n o th erwi se pe rm it te d, an d, of co ur se , th e ov eral l st ren gt h of th e

pr os ecu ti on ’s cas e.” Van Arsd al l, 4 75 U.S. at 6 84

.

As a pr act ic al m at te r, th e ha rm le ss -e r r o r in qu iry in th is cas e pr es en ts so m e

an al y ti cal di ffi cu lt y

. Gen eral ly sp eak in g, in th e Van Arsd al l li ne o f c a s e s, co ur ts

rev ie w fo r ha rm le ss erro r a di st ric t co ur t’s li m it at io n on cro ss -ex am in at io n in te nd ed

t o im pe ach a wit ne ss ’s cred ib il it y

. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Lov e, 32 9 F

. 3 d 9 8 1

, 98 5– 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ); Cal dwe ll

, 88 F.3 d at 52 4– 25

. In su ch ci rcu m st an ces , co ur ts

of te n “ di sr eg ard ” th e en ti ret y of th e te st im on y th at de fen se co un se l was no t pe rm it te d

to im pe ach to de te rm in e if th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se erro r was ha rm le ss

. See, e.g ., Lov e, 32 9 F.3 d at 98 6 (co nc lu di ng th at erro r was no t ha rm le ss in pa rt be cau se if th e

wit ne ss ’s te st im on y was d is reg ard ed

, “ th e go ve rn m en t [was ] le ft wit h le ss th an

ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce of [d efen da nt ]’ s gu il t” ); Cal dwe ll

, 88 F.3 d at 52 5 (co nc lu din g th at Co nf

ro nt at io n C la us e vi ol at io n was ha rm le ss be cau se , “ ev en if we en ti rel y

di sr eg ard [th e wit ne ss ’s] te st im on y , th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e ag ai ns t [th e de fen da nt ]

. . .

was st ro ng ”).

In th is cas e, W al ke r’s pr op os ed cro ss -ex am in at io n di d not se ek to at ta ck W .F.’s

cred ib il it y pe r se , so th is tra di ti on al ha rm le ss -err or an al y si s is an im pe rfec t fit

. And

if we do no t di sr eg ard W .F.’s t e s t i mo ny as wou ld be req ui red by th is an al y si s, it is

di ffi cu lt

, as a co nc ep tu al m at te r, to “ as su m [e] th at th e da m ag in g po te n t i a l o f t he

cro ss -ex am in at io n [was ] fu ll y real iz ed .” Van Arsd al l, 47 5 U.S. at 68 4. Nev ert he le ss ,

gu id ed by th e Van Arsd al l fact or s— es pe ci al ly “ th e pr es en ce or ab se nc e of ev id en ce

co rro bo rat in g or co nt rad i ct in g th e te st im on y of th e wit ne ss on m at eri al po in ts

, th e

ex te nt of cro ss -ex am in at io n ot he rwis e pe rm it te d, and

. . . th e ov eral l str en gt h of the

pr os ecu ti on ’s cas e”— I co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s erro r was ha rm le ss

. W al ke r

te st ifi ed ab ou t hi s bel ie f th at he was a ct in g ou t a fan ta sy an d di sc us se d th e co nt en ts

-1 4-of a web si te co nt ai ni ng “ so ur ce m at eri al ” fo r fan ta si es th at he pl ay ed ou t wit h ot he rs

.

Mo reo ve r, al be it in a m or e li m it ed fas hi on , W al ke r was ul ti m at el y pe rm it te d to cro ss

ex am in e W .F. ab ou t m an y of th e m es sa ge s he ex ch an ge d wit h Wa l k e r, es pe ci al ly

th os e th at W .F. in it ia te d. Fi na ll y , an d pe rh ap s m os t fu nd am en ta ll y , th e go ve rn m en t’s

cas e ag ai ns t W al ke r was st ro ng

. The jury was pr es en te d wit h W al ke r’s own

st at em en ts th at W .F. was “ un de rag e an d [co ul d] ge t [h im ] in t r o u b l e,” an d wit h

ev id en ce th at W al ke r as ke d W .F. to se nd hi m p o rn og rap hi c im ag es

. See Cal dwe ll

, 8 8 F .3d at 52 5 (d efen da nt ’s own in cu lp at or y st at em en ts co nt rib ut ed to st ren gt h o f

go ve rn m en t’s cas e, pr ecl ud in g rev ers al on ha rm le ss -err or rev ie w); se e al so su pr a Part

I.D (fi nd in g th at ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t W al ke r). As su ch

, al th ou gh I am

tro ub le d by th e Si xt h Am en dm en t vi ol at io n th at oc cu rred in th is cas e, I am ul ti m at el y

pe rs ua de d th at th e erro r was ha rm le ss an d ag ree th at th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t

sh ou ld be affi rm ed . I th us co nc ur in th e co ur t’s o pi ni on ex cep t fo r Part I.B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 5-