## 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. 09

- 2880 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C ARL A. C OURT R I GHT, III, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:07- cr-30179

—David R. H ern don, Chief Judge.
A RGUED O CT OB ER 29, 2010

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 13, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . Carl Courtr i ght w as convi cted ofpro du cti on, poss ess i on, and re cei pt ofchi l d pornog ra p hy a nd s en te nc ed to l i fe pl us t eny ea r s i n pr i so n. Courtr i ght no w appeal s hi s co nvi cti on, cl ai m i ng tha t e v i de nc e o fa pri or se xu a la s s a ul twa s e r r o ne o us l y a dm itted at tri al and that cert a in jury i ns tru ctions w ere i m proper . W hi l e we ag re e that the ev i dence ofCourt

r i g ht ’ s pr i o r s ex ua la ss au l t was a dm i tt ed er r o ne o us l y a nd2 N o. 09

- 2880 th at som e of th e j ury inst ruc tions m ay ha ve bee n inc orrect, reversal is un ne cess ary bec au se th ese err o r s w ere ha r m l es s. As s uch, we affi r m Co ur tr i g ht ’ s co nv i ct i o n.

I. B ACK GR OUN D Courtr i ght f ashi ons hi m sel fas so m et hi ng o fan am at eu r p h ot og ra p h er . U n for tu n at ely , th e s u bj ec ts of h is pho to g r aphs ar e unde r ag e g i r l s en g ag ed i n v ar i o us se x u al a c tiv itie s. C ou rt rig h t firs t t oo k u p h i s h ob b y in 1998 , w he n h e m et a fi fteen-yea r-ol d gi rl, L. M il ler, thro ugh hi s r oo m m ate
. A fterf or gin g a fri endship with M iller, C ou rt rig h t p er su ad ed M iller to p os e fo r ex p licit pho tographs

. As pa r t o fCo ur tr i g ht ’ s pho to s ho o t, he dir ecte d M i l l eri nto var i ous pos es and too k p ictur es of he r e xpo se d b r ea st s an d g en i ta l i a. At one poi ntdur i ng th e s h o o t, C o ur t r i g h tt o l d Mi l l e r th a th e h a d s o me m ed icalkno w l edge a nd needed to exam i ne her

. H e then i nser ted hi s fi nger s into h er vagi na. A fterthi s co nd uct cam e t o l i ght, Courtr i ght ple d guil ty to agg ra vate d sexual abuse pu rs uant to I LC S 5/ 12- 16( a) ( 2)
. A s a r esul t o fthat con viction, C ou rtright ha d to regi ster as a sex offen d er. I n 200 7, the I l l i nois A tt orney Generalbeg an a probe ofso ci aln etwork i ng si tes to d ete rm i ne w hetherr egi ste re d sex o ffenders w er e a cti ve users. This i nvest i gat i on r e v e a l e d t h a tCo u r t r i g h th a d a n a c c o u n to n My s p a c e . c o m. Office rs used the M yspace . com r eco rds t o l earn Courtri ght’ s I P address, wh i ch they fed i nto a database o f addr es se s f o und t o ha ve o ffer ed ch i l d po r no g r aph y f ordi str ibuti on o n the I nter net. The I P addres s C ourt
ri ght use d to check hi s M yspace . com accou n t m atchedN o. 09

- 2880 3

To C at ch a Pre dat or w as an N BC tel evis ion prog ra m th at 1 track ed sexu al p red ato rs a s th ey u sed th e Inte rn et to en g ag e in e x pl i c i tc omm un i c a t i on s wi th a ppa r e ntm i no r s . Ea ch e pi s od e t y p i c a l l y c u l mi n a t e d w i th th e p r e d a t o r a r r i v i n g a tth e h o me ofthe pr e s umed m i no r , o ft e n c a r r yi nga l c oh ola nd c on t r a c e pti ves in a ub iqui tous brow n bag

. The predator w a s g reet ed first b y a “de c oy”

— an adul tac t or who a ppea re d under age

— and t h e n b y h o s tC h r i s Ha n s o n a n d a t e l e v i s i o n c r e w. See C o mm en t, L o re n R i g sb y , A C al l f or Ju dici al Scru ti n y: How In creased Ju d ic ia l D isc re tio n Ha s L ed t o D isp a rity a n d U n p re d ic ta b ility in Fede ra l Sent enci ng f

orC hi l d Pornography, 3 3 S e a t t l e U. L. Re v. 1 3 1 9 , 13 3 8 (20 1 0 ). one used to dow nl oad chi ld p or n ogr aphy thr ough a fi l es h a r i n g p ro gr am ca lled L im ew ire . Of fice rs u se d th is inform ation to obta in a w arran t to search Cou rtright’s re si dence, wh er e he l i ved w i th hi s par ents. Du r i n gth e s e a r c h o fC o u r t r i g h t ’ s h o me , o ffi c e r s f o und se ve ra l co m p u te rs an d co m p u te r eq u ip m en t. A fore n sic previ ew o fa l aptop f ound in C ou rt ri ght’ s be droo m sh o wed tha t th e ha r d dr i ve c o nt aine d c hi l d po r no g r aph y i m ag es do wnl o ade d thr o ug h Li m ewi r e. In s ubs eque nt in te rv iew s, C ou rt rig h t a d m itt ed th at h e w as th e o n ly u se r of L im ew ire in t h e h om e a n d of th e la p to p fo u n d in hi s be droo m . H e went on to sta te, som ew h at i ro ni cal l y, tha t he do wnl o a de d the i mag e s a ft e r wa t c hinga n e pi s o de of To Cat ch a Pre dat or . He c l a i me d th a th e wa s c u r i o us 1 ab o u t h o w p o r n o g r a p h i c i ma g e s we r e d i s s e mi n a t e d a nd that, aftersati sfyi ng his curi osi ty, h e i m m edi ate l y del ete d the i m age s. A m or e deta i l ed anal ysi s o fthe com pu ters sei zed fro m Courtr i ght’ s ho m e reveal ed a l ar ge i nventory o fi m age s4 N o. 09

- 2880 depicting chi l d pornog ra p h y, m any o fwh i ch w er e no t del ete d. So m e o ft h e im age s were f ound on a deskto p th at w as p as s w or d -p ro te c te d for C ou rt rig h t’s so le acces s, wh i l e o ther s were f ound o n a laptop that Courtr i g htha d a l r ea dy con ced ed was f o r hi s l o ne us e. The com pu ter s’ r eco rds a l so sho w ed that, o n m ult i ple o ccasi ons , the po r no g r aph i c i m ag es wer e o pen ed ar o und the sam e t i m e that Cour tr i ght’ s o nl i ne b an k acco unt orso ci al ne two r k i ngpr o fi l e was a cc es se d. An ana ly si s o fthe i m ag e fi l es s ho wed tha t th e m aj o r i ty ofthe m wer e do wnl oaded offof the I nter net, w hi l e el eve n others were tr ansferred to th e hard drive d irectly from a H ew lett-Pack ard ca m er a. The s am e gi r lwas de pi ct ed i n e ac h o fthe c am er a p h ot os , bu t s h e w as n otrea d ily id en tifia b le

— her f ac e was ob scure d a nd b an dag es wer e appl i ed to i den

ti fyi ng m ar ks. O ffice rs lat er id e n tifie d th e m ys te ry girl as S.J., a f o ur te en - y ea r - o l d who li ved wi thhe r f athe r i n the garag e o fa re si dence owned byCourt ri ght’ s par ents. Du ring a tea ryint er vi ew , S
. J
. r eco unted the e vents that l ed t o th e ph oto s be i ng ta ken. S he to l d offi cer s that Cou r tr i g htfi r stb o ug hthe r g i fts a nd l ethe r s l eep ina bedr o o m he o ft e n o c c up i e d in the a dj a c e nth o us e . Af ter the tw o becam e a cqu ainted, Court ri ght o ffer ed to gi ve he r l o ti o n r ubs an d m as sa g es , g o i ng so f ar as to r ub lot ion on h er bu tt oc ks w h ile te llin g h er to “t h in k of h im as a do ct o r ” o n o ne o cc as i o n. S. J
. cl ai m ed that Courtr i ght e ventual l y a ske d her to pose f or expli ci t photos. A fter i ni ti al l y re buki ng Court

r i g ht ’ s a dva nc es , S
. J
. a g r ee d. At Co ur tr i g ht ’ s di r ec ti o n,N o. 09

- 2880 5 S
. J
. s a ti n a di r e c t o r ’ s c ha i r a nd p o s e d in v a r i o us st age s ofundress w hi l e Cour tr i ght t oo k pi cture s o fh er . Fo r o ne pho to , Cou rt r i g htt o l d S

. J
. t o s pi t o n h erha nd a nd m as tu rb at e. S.J. told offic er s t h at C ou r t r i g h t a lso p u t h is fi nger s in hervag i na duri ng the sho ot, te l l i ng h er that he kn ew “m ed ical stu ff” an d ne ed ed to “ex am in e ” her. Offi cer s l ate r confro nted Courtr igh t w i th thi s info rm ation. W hile h e a d m itted to ow nin g a H ew lett-Pack ard ca m er a, he de ni ed ev ert ak i ngpho to s o fS
. J
. a nd ha d no expla nati on f orhow the photo s g ot onto hi s har d dri ve. Bas ed o n i nfo rm ati on fro m Court ri ght’ s co m pu ter s, offi cer s a l so l earned that Courtr i ght ha d been o rdai ned as a min i st erb y a n o nl i ne c o m pan y. H e us ed th i s st atus to c r e a t e a n o nl i ne mi ni s t r y a nd the n man uf a c t ur e d f ake donati on chec ks. Court ri ght deposi ted the check s into an acc ount a nd t h en used the sum s t o m ake a num ber ofl ar ge pu rchas es. On F eb r ua r y 1 8, 2 00 9, Cou r tr i g ht was ch ar g ed wi tho ne count o fpro du cti on o fchi l d po rnogr aphy, two co unts o f posse ssi on of c hi l d pornog ra phy, o ne co unt ofr ecei pt of c h ild por nogr aphy, and one count o fbankfra ud

. Pri or to tria l, th e g ov er n m e n t filed a n ot ice ind ica tin g t h at it pla nn ed to i ntro du ce e vi dence ofCourt ri ght’ s pri or sexualas saul t o fL. M i l l erand of Cour tr i ght’ s s tatus as a re gis te re d se x offe n d er . C ou rt rig h t c on c ed ed th at h is st at u s as a se x offender w as i nter tw i ned and adm i ssibl e, an d the di st r i ctc o ur t admi tt ed i t o n tha t ba si s. But Courtr i ght obj ecte d to the a dm i ssion ofhi s pri orse xual as sa ul t. The di st r i ctc o ur t ul ti m at ely a g r ee d wi ththe gov er nm ent a nd , afterdeter m i ni ng tha t th e e vi dence6 N o. 09

- 2880

w as rele va n t a n d n otu n d u l y p rej u d icia l, ad m itt ed it pu rs uant to Rule 41 3. The tr ial bega n on M ar ch 2, 20 09, and l ast ed fi ve days. On the fi rs t day ofte sti m ony, t h e di str i ct c ourtga ve an er ro neous el em ents i nstr ucti on t o the j ury, to wh i ch th e g o ve r nm en t o bj ec te d. O n th e f o l l o wi ngda y, the di st r i ctc o ur t r ec o g ni ze d the pr o bl em an d c o r r ec te d the el ement s i ns truct i o n, de spi te Co ur tr i g ht ’ s ar g um en t that the ini ti ali nstr ucti on was co rr ect. Du ring the rem ai nd erof the tr i al, the gov ernm ent c al l ed fou rt ee n w itn es se s. T h e w itn es se s in c lu d ed fore n sic expert s a n d i nvest i gat i ng o ffi cer s who had parti ci pated i n the i nv es ti g at i on, who t es ti fi ed to the c o nt en ts o fthe hard dri ves and Cour tr i ght’ s sta tem ents to l aw en forcem en t, r es pec ti ve l y . S
. J
. a l so t es ti fi ed as t o a l lo fthe de t a i l s s he h a d p r e v i o us l y tol d o ffi c e r s , wi th o ne e xc e pti on

— sh e d id n otst at e t h at C ou rt rig h t h ad ins er t e d h is fi ng er s i nt o he r v ag i na dur i ngthe pho to s ho o t. S
. J. ’s fathert es ti fi ed th atCo ur tr i g htha d a sk ed hi m abo ut tak i ng photo gr aphs ofS
. J
. Court ri ght’ s ce l l m ate te stifi ed t h a t C ou rtright ha d ad m itted to taking pictu res of a yo u n g g irl. Fin ally , L . M iller t es tifie d ab ou t t h e d et ails ofCo ur t r i g ht ’ s p r i o r s e xu a la s s a ul t, wi th the di s t ri ct cour t g i vi ng a l i m i ti n g instr ucti on be f or e a nd afterher tes ti m ony. Court ri ght pr ese nted no witnesse s. F o l l o wi ngcl o singar g um en ts , the j ur y f o und Co ur tr i g ht gu il ty of allcou nt s. T he district cou rt sent en ced him to l ife plus 120 m onths’ i m pri sonm en t forthe producti on count, 24 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent forthe p os se ssi on counts, 48 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent forthe re cei pt count,N o. 09

- 2880 7 and 360 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent forthe fr aud count. Cou r tr i g htt i m ely a ppea l ed hi s co nv i ct i o n.

II. A NA LYSIS O n ap p eal, Co u r t right argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt ma d e a n u mb e r o fe r r o r s w ar r an t i n ga n e w t r i a l

. He claim s t h a t evide nc e of his p riorsexu al assau lt w as erro neousl y a dm i tte d, that a num bero fthe j ury i nstr ucti ons w er e i m proper, and that the c um ula ti ve effect of th es e e rro rs d ep riv ed h im of a fa ir tr ia l . W e w ill addr es s ea cha r g um en t i n tur n.

A
. PriorBa d Act Courtr i ght’ s fi rs t cl ai m i s th at the di str i ct c ourter re d w hen i t a dm i tte d evi dence of hi s pri orse xual ass aul t. W e re vie w a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s inter preta ti on o fthe rul es of evi dence deno vo and i ts deci si on t o adm i t e vi dence for an ab u se of d isc re tio n, U nited Sta t es v. R o gers , 58 7 F
. 3d 816, 819 (7th C ir. 2009), m ind ful that evid en tiary errors d o n otreq u ire rev er sa l if th ey w er e h ar m les s, U nited St at e s v. Tayl or, 604 F.3d 101 1, 1016 ( 7th Cir. 2010). T h e d ist ric t c ou rtad m itt ed th e p rior se x u al a ss au lt pu rs uant to Fe deralRule o fEvi dence 4 13. Rule 41 3 pro

vi des, i n re l evantpart : I n a c r i mi na l c a s e i n whi c h the de fe nd a nt i s accused ofan o ffense ofse xual assaul t, ev i dence of the defendant’s co m m i ssi on o fano theroffe nse o r offenses o fse xual ass aul t i s ad m i ssibl e, and m ay8 N o. 09

- 2880 be c on si dered f ori ts bear i ng o n any m att erto w hi ch i t i s r el evant
. F ed. R. Ev i d. 4 13 ( a). In a dm i tt i ngthe e vi den ce , the dist ri ct c ourti nter prete d the w or d “accused” bro adly, hol ding that Rule 413 i s t ri gge re d w hen a defe n d ant has bee n v e rb a l l y a c c us e d o fs e xu a la s s a ul tdu r i ngthe c o urse o fa n inv es ti g at i o n int o a sep arate o ffen se . Co ur tr i g ht ta k es i ss ue wi ththi s i nt er pr et at i o n o fRul e 41 3, a r g ui ng that Rule 413 appli es onl y when a party has bee n char ged w i th an “offense ofse xual ass aul t” i n the i nd i ctm ent. W e do not ag re e with the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r eadi ng o f Rule 413. T he di str i ct c ourt ’ s inter preta ti on was bas ed on the f act that Rule 413 uses the word “a ccused” instea d o f “c ha r g ed” t o i ndi ca te wheni t i s tr i g g er ed. The g o ve r nm ent defend s th e di str i ct c ourt ’ s r eadi ng bynot i ng tha t, because the rul e dra fter s use the w or d “charg ed” el sew here , the use of th e word “a ccused” in thi s instance sh o ul d b e g i ve n b r o ade r e ffec t. W e be l i ev e th e g o vernm ent m ake s t oo m uch ofthi s di stincti on

— a tth e t i me Rule 413 w as drafted ( and t oday) , the w or d “accused” w as o ft enus ed i n a t ec hni ca ls en se t o de sc r ibe s o m eo ne w h o w as ch ar ge d w ith a c rim e. See B la ck ’s La w D i c t i o na ry 22- 23 ( 6th e d. 1990 ) (defi ni ng “accuse” as “to bri ng a f or m al c h ar ge ag ain st a p er so n ”); We b s t e r ’s Thi r d New Int e r nat i onal D ictio na ry14 ( 1986 ) ( defini ng “a ccuse” as , a m ong othe r th in gs , “to ch ar ge w i t h a n offe n se j u d icia lly or by p u b lic proce ss” )
. There i s no thi ng i n the t ex t orco m m i tte e no tes ofRule 41 3 t o i nd i cate thatthe w or d “ac c u sed” was used i n a b r o ade r f as hi o n.N o. 09

- 2880 9

The m ore diffic ult quest ion i s w hetherCou rt ri ght w as 2 indeed charged w ith an “offense ofs exu a l a ss ault. ” Ru le 413 defi ne s “o ffen s e ofs ex ual as s aul t ” qu ite e xpa ns i vel y, s t at i ng thati ti nc l udes a c ri m e “thatinv olv ed .

. . c ont ac t, without conse nt, between a n y p artofthe def endan t’ s bod y or an o b j e c ta n d th e g e n i t a l s o r a n a n u s o fa n o t h e r p e r s o n . ” We c an i m agi ne a n ar gum en tthatCour t ri ght ’ s c har ge of p ro d u ction o f c hild p or no g rap hy “inv olv ed ” a sexu al assau lt because S. J
. i nit ial ly r eported thatCou rt ri ght touched her v a g in a d u ri n g th e p h o t o sh o o t. C f
. Un i t ed Sta t es v. Jul i an , 427 F. 3d 4 71 , 48 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05 ) ( not ing the pos s ibl e bre adth o f the “i nv ol ved” l ang uage )
. Butne i the r s i de m ade thi s ar gum en t, so w e n ee d n o t a d d re ss it to d a y . W e fi nd addit i onalsupport f orthi s r eadi ng o fRule 41 3 i n ne a rb y Ru l e 4 1 2
. Ru l e 4 1 2 pe r mi t s the a dmi ssi on o f a v ict im ’s s ex u al b eh a v ior b y t h e a c c u se d in c er ta in l i m i ted ci rcum sta nces. The co m m i tte e note s t o Rule 412 spe ci fy tha t, f o r thi s Rul e, “ ac cus ed” i s m ea nti n a br o ade r, “ no n- te ch ni ca ls en se , ” an d tha t th er e i s “n o r equi r ementtha t th er e be a c r i m i na l ch ar g e pen di ng ag ain stth e p er so n or ev en th at th e m isc on d u c t w ou ld con stitut e a crim inal offense” before e vide nc e of a v i c t i m’ s s e xu a lb e ha v i o r c a n b e a dmi t t e d. F e d. R
. Ev i d. 41 2 adv i so r y c o m m i tt ee ’ s no te
. Rul e 41 3 p rovide s no si m i l arcl ar i fi cati on f orthe use of the w or d “ accused, ” no r do the re st ofthe rul es. W e the r efo r e co nc l ude tha t Rul e 41 3 us es the t erm “a c c u se d ” in th e m or e n ar ro w , tec h n ica l se n se ge n er ally i nvoke d thro ughout the federa lr ule s. See 23 Cha rl es 2 Al a n Wr i g h t & Mi c h a e l W. Gr a h a m, Fe de r al Pr ac t i cean d10 N o. 09

- 2880 Proc e dure § 5413, at54 9- 50 ( Supp. 2010 ) ( “Since [ Rule 413] d oe s n otem p loy th e la n gu ag e o f R ev ise d R u le 4 12 , i t se em s re as on ab le t o s u p p os e t h atth e w or d s a re u se d in the t echni calse nse; thati s, the evid ence ofo therse xual cr im es i s o nl y a dm i ss ibl e ag ains t a cr i m i na lde fen dan t an d only i f th e crim e ch arged i s sex ua l assa ult.”). So w e a re l eft with the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a dm i ssi on o f evi dence pu rs u an t t o an er ro neous i nter preta ti on o f Ru l e 4 1 3
. “ [ A] n e r r o r o fl a w i s , b y de fi ni t i o n, a n ab us e ofd iscr eti on. ” A lm o na cid v. U nited Sta tes , 47 6 F
. 3d 518, 52 1 (7th C i r . 2 00 7)
. Butthi s er r o r woul d b e ha r m l es s, a nd no new tri alwould be necess ar y, i fthe ev idence was ad m iss ible u n d er an ot h er ru le. U nite d State s v. A lbi ola , 62 4 F. 3d 431, 43 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. The go vern m ent a rgues that the e rr or was harm l ess bec ause the e vi dence w as als o a d m iss ible p u rs u an t t o R u le 4 04 (b )
. E vid en c e is ad m issible un d er Ru le 404(b) if : ( 1) the e vi den ce i s di r ec te d t o war d e stabl i sh i ng a m att eri n i ssue othe r than the d efe nd ant’ s pro p en sit y t o c om m i t t h e c rim e c h ar ge d ; (2) th e e vidence shows thatthe other act i s s i m i l areno ugh an d c l o se e no ug h in t i m e to b e r el ev an t to the m att eri n i ssue; ( 3) the evi dence i s s ufficien t t o s u p p o r t a j u r y fi n d i n g th a t th e d e fe n d a ntc o mm i tted the s i m i l aract; and ( 4) the evi dence has proba ti ve val ue thatis not substa nti al l y o utw ei ghed by the dange r ofunfa i r prej ud i ce. U nited Sta tes v. Sto tler, 591 F.3d 935 , 941 (7th C ir. 2010). The g o v e r nme ntc l a i ms tha tthe fi r s tp r o ngi s s a t i s fi ed because the pri orbad a c t evi dence w as adm i ssibl e t oN o. 09

- 2880 11 prove Court ri ght’ s intent, m oti ve, or i denti ty. W e a gr ee th atthe e vi den ce was a t l ea stpr o ba ti ve o fCo ur tr i gh t’s m oti ve. L. M iller ’ s t est i m ony shows that, i n the past, Courtr i ght e ngage d i n sexual l y e x p l i ci t co ntact w i th an und er age gi rl

. Thi s pri ori nstance o fse xual m i sco nd uct te n d s t o e st ab l i s h a m ot ive for th e c rim e a ga in st S.J.: Courtr i ght m ay have i nd uc ed S
. J
. to ta ke the pi cture s s o th athe c o ul d a g ain a ch i ev e se xua lg r at i fi ca ti o n wi tha m inor. See U nite d State s v. Sebol t, 46 0 F
. 3d 91 0, 91 7 ( 7th C ir
. 2 00 6) ( fi ndi ngtha t pr i o r b ad ac ts t o war d a y o ung vi cti m m ay show that a defendant has a s exual i nter est in tha t age g r o u p and therefore p rovide eviden ce of a m oti ve to com m i t future sexual l y m oti vate d cri m es ag ain stch ild re n ); U ni t e d St at e s v. C un ni ngh am , 10 3 F
. 3d 553, 55 6 ( 7th C ir. 19 96) ( “M ostpeopl e do not have a ta st e f o r s e x u a l l y mo l e s t i n gc h i l d r e n . As b e t we e n t wo s us pe c t e d mo l e s t e r s , the n, o nly o ne o fwh o m has a hi sto ryo fsuch m ol est ati on, the hi sto ryes tabl i shes a m otiv e th at en ables th e tw o sus p ects to be distingu ished

. ”). T he govern m en t also cl aim s tha t the secon d and third prongs ar e s ati sfi ed, and w e a gr ee. A dm i tte dly, ther e was one dist i ncti on between the tw o cri m es

— i n the fi rs t, Cou r tr i g ht ac tu al l y se xua l as sa ul te d th e vi ct i m dur i ngthe c ou rs e o f th e p h ot o s h o o t, w h ile in th e s ec on d h e o n ly encour age d he r to touch hers el f i n an expli ci t m anner w hile taking the p hot ograp h s . B ut the tw o crim es are st i l ls i m i l ari n i m po r ta ntre spe ct s. In b o thc r i m es , the per pet r at o r t o o kt i m e to de ve l o p a r el at i o nshi p wi ththe vic tim s, b o u gh t g ifts for th em , an d en ga ge d in s ex u ally expli ci t a cts w i th the m under the auspi ces ofpro vi ding m edi caladvi ce. In additi on, al though there was12 N o. 09

- 2880

a ni ne - y ea r g ap be twe en th e ass au l t o fL. M i l l era nd t h e p h oto sho ot w ith S. J. , Cou rtright w as incarc erate d

— and thus i ncapac i tat ed

— f ora l ar ge part ofthat ti m e. Final l y, Court ri ght was fou n d guil ty by a j ury of the pr i orbad ac t. T h e g ov er n m en t fin ally arg u es th at th e la s t p ro n g is sat i sfi ed beca use the di str ict cour t found the ev i dence proba ti ve, anal yze d i t u n d erRule 40 3, and deter m i ned that any pr ej ud i ce c oul d be cur ed vi a a l im i ti ng i nstr ucti on. But, as C ourt ri ght c or re ctl y points o ut, the tr i al co ur t co nduc te d a Rul e 40 3 pr ej udi ce a na l y si s o n the pr e mi s e tha tthe e v i de nc e wa s b e i nga dmi t t e d u nder Rule 413. Rule 41 3 e xpressly a llow s the go ver nm ent t o u se p rior ba d ac ts to sh ow th at a d e f e n d an t a c te d in conf or m i ty ther ew i th

— i n other w or ds, f orpro p en si ty p u rp os es . A c c or d in gly , a R u le 4 1 3 p r eju d ice an aly sis i s l i m i ted and f oc u ses o n other sour ces ofprej ud i ce. R o gers , 58 7 F
. 3d at 823. U nl i ke a prej ud i ce a nal ysi s forR u le 4 13, a Rule 404(b) pr ej udi ce de te r m i na ti o n a l so e val ua te s whethe r the evid en ce wil lbe i m proper l y use d by the j ury as proo f of p ro p en sit y. Id. The ri sk of a j ury usi ng the evid ence f o r thi s pur po se i s par ti cul ar l y hi g h whe r e, a s he r e, the pri orbad ac t m ay es ta b li sh an a dd i cti on t o som eth i ng

— l i ke pyro m ani a, drug use, o r sexu al gra ti fi cati on th roug h t h e assau lt ofm inors

— and thus a m oti ve to c om m it th at cr im e a ga in
. Cunni ngh am , 10 3 F
. 3d at 556. Especia lly i n sex cri m es, m oti ve and propensi ty often do ve ta i l, a nd a cou rt m us t be c ar eful“ ab o uta dm i tt i ng u n d er th e ru b ric of m o t i v e e v id en c e t h at th e jur y isN o. 09

- 2880 13 l i k ely t o us e i ns te ad as a b asis for i nfer r i ngthe defe nd ant’ s pro pensi ty. ” Id. at 557. The go ver nm ent doe s n o ta d d r e s s th i s pr o p e n s i t y p r o b l e m i n i t s b r i e f, a n d “ we ar e no t i n the b us i ne ss o ff o r m ul at i nga r g um en ts f o r the p ar ti es. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cCl e l l an , 1 6 5 F
. 3 d 5 3 5 , 5 50 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. A ccor dingl y, the go ver nm ent’ s Rul e 4 04(b) a r gume nti s i nc o mpl e t e a nd wa i v e d. Bu t e ven a ssum i ng the pri orbad ac t e vi dence w as not admi ss ibl e, r eversali s unne ce ss ar y i fthe e r r o r ha d no effe c t o n th e o u tc om e o f th e t ria l. U nited Sta tes v. C o nn er, 583 F. 3d 1011 , 1025 ( 7th Cir
. 2009 )
. W e ar e con vin c ed th a ti s the c a s e h e r e . Co ur t r i g ht ’ s s t a t us a s a s e x o f f ender w as al re ady be for e the j ury, and thus the l i kel i hood that th e pri o r b ad ac t te st i m o ny fr o m L. M i l l erha d a ny effec t o n the j ur y i s n egli g ibl e. M o r e i m po r ta nt l y, the ev id en c e o f C ou rt rig h t’s gu ilt w as ov er w h elm in g. See U nite d S ta tes v. D ennis , 497 F.3d 765 , 769-70 (7th C ir. 20 07 ) ( fi ndi ngha r m l es s er r o r whenthe r e was abun dan t ev id en c e o f th e d efe n d an t’s gu ilt). T h e im ag es o fS.J., al o ngwi thnumer o us o th eri m ag es o fc hi l d porno g r aph y a n d d a t a o n the ba n kfr a u d s c h e me , we r e f o u n d o n t wo com pu ter s a t Cour tr i ght’ s ho m e. Court ri gh t a dm i tte d th ato ne o fthe c o m put er s was hi s, a nd o nl y Co ur tr i g ht had acces s t o the s eco nd

. Courtrig ht al so sta ted to l aw en f o r ce m en t th athe ha d do wnl o ade d a n um be r o fthe chi l d pornog rap h y i m age s found on hi s har d dri ves. Furtherm or e, S
. J
. te sti fi ed that Cour tr ight too k the pi cture s of her, her f ather tes ti fi ed that Courtr i ght a ske d about tak i n g pictur es ofS
. J
. , and Courtr i ght’ s ce l l m ate testifi ed that Cou rtright con fessed to taking p ictures of a y o un gg i r l

. F i n a l l y, C o u r t r i g h tc a l l e d n o wi tn e s s e s a nd14 N o. 09

- 2880 offer ed no e vi dence ofh is innocence, l ending further su p p o r t t o a find in g of h ar m les s e rro r. See U nited Sta tes v. Tayl or, 522 F.3d 731 , 735 (7th C ir. 2008).

B. Jury Ins t r uc t i ons Courtr i ght’ s seco nd cl ai m on appeal i s that a n u m ber o fthe j ur y i ns truct i o ns wer e er r o ne ou s. Co ur tr i g ht did n ot obj ect to these i nstr ucti ons at tr i al, so we re vi ew for p lain err or . U ni t e d S t at e s v. No el , 5 81 F. 3d 490, 49 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. To e stabl i sh pl ai n error , C ourt ri ght m ust show that ther e w as an actual er ro r, that the er ro r w as pla i n, thatthe er ro r “affect[ ed] th e defe nd ant’ s s ubs t a nt i a lr i g ht s , ” and tha tthe e r r o r “ s e r i o us l y a ffe c t [ e d] the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, o r pu bl i c r eputati on o fj ud i ci al proce edi ngs. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Canady, 578 F. 3d 665, 67 0 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ). Pla inerr or rev iew o fju ry ins tr u c tio n s is “p ar tic u lar ly ligh t h an d ed ,” an d w e w ill rev er se on ly if th e e rro r w as of su c h a “g re at m ag n itu d e t h at it p ro b ab ly changed the o utcom e o fthe tr i al
. ” Unit e d S t at e s v. M o o re, 115 F.3d 134 8, 1362 ( 7th Cir. 1997). Courtr i ght first t ake s i ssue w i th the i ni ti alel em ents i nstr ucti on, wh i ch w as gi ven a s a p re l i m i naryi nstr ucti on a t th e beginning ofthe tr i al

. That instr ucti on i nfo rm ed the j ury that th e go ve rnm ent had t o prove an add i tio n alel em ent forthe producti on a nd poss ess i on counts

— n am ely th a t t h e “ d efe n d an t h ad be en p re vio u sly co nv i ct ed o fa s ex o ffens e i n whi cha min o r was the vi ct i m ” f o r the pr o duct i o n c o unta nd tha t th e “de fen dan t had a pri or convi cti on . . . re l ating to agg ra vate d se xual ab us e, s ex ua la bu se, o r abus i ve s ex ua lc o nduc t i nv o l vingN o. 09

- 2880 15

a m i nor. . . or the p ro du cti on, p oss ess i on, r ecei pt, m ai l i ng, sa l e, [ o r ] di st r ibution

. . . o fc hi l d po r no g r aph y ” f o r the p os se ss ion co u n t. T h e g ov er n m en t re aliz ed th e a d d iti o na le l ement s wer e er r o ne o us a nd obj ec te d. Co ur tr i g ht c o u n t e r e d th a t th e i n s t r u c t i o n wa s a p p r o p r i a t e , b ut t he dist ri ct c ourtco rr ecte d the instr ucti on the f ol l owing day. W e n ee d n ot deter m i ne wh etherthe i ni ti alel em ents i nstr ucti on was er ro neous because Cou rtri ght ha s w ai ved thi s c laim . A defe nd ant wai ves an o bj ecti on t o a j ur y i ns truction w he n h e affi r m at i ve l y a ppr o ve s th e in st ru c tio n atis s u e . U nite d States v. D iSantis , 56 5 F
. 3d 354, 361 ( 7th C ir. 2009 ). B y op p osing t h e gov ernm en t’s i ni ti alo bj ec ti o n t o the e l ement s i ns truct i o n a nd i ndi c a t i ngtha tthe i ns t r uc ti on wa s c o r r e c t, we c o nc l ud e th atCo urtri g hta ppr o ve d the i ni ti ali ns truct i o n a nd th u s f o r e c l o s e d a n y a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. Courtr i ght ne xt cl ai m s that the co rr ecte d j ury i ns tructi o n was e r r o ne o us . The a rgum en t g o es : b ec au se the i ni ti ali nstr ucti on pro vi ded that the go ver nm ent had t o sh ow th at C ou rt rig h t e n ga ge d i n c h ild m ole st at ion in th e p as t, th e jur y b elie ve d t h at C ou rt rig h t h ad ac tu ally engag ed i n chi l d m ol est ati on. W i thout a cl earexpl anati on o fthe di ffe r e nc e s b e t we e n the i ni t i a li ns t r uc t i on an d th e c or re c te d ins tr u c tio n, C ou rt rig h t c laim s t h at th is er r o ne o us b el i efpe r si st ed th r o ug ho utthe tri al

. W e fi nd thi s a rgum ent unpers uasi ve f ora num bero fr eas ons. F i r st, a s di sc us se d abo ve , Co ur tr i g hts an ct i o ne d the very instru ction th at p rod uc ed this pu rp orted beli ef. Se c on d , an d m or e i m p o rt an tly , an err or is n otp lain u nless it w as ex traord inary

— s o “ o b v i o u s , c r u c i a l, a nd16 N o. 09

- 2880 egr egi ous that we m ay and shou ld cor re ct i t e ven though no obj ecti on was m ade bel ow.” Backwat e r, Inc . v. P enn Am e r i ca n Ins . Co. , 4 4 8 F
. 3 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. We do no t b e l i e v e tha t the di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s o mi s s i o n of spe ci fi c adv ice r eg ar di ngthe di ffer en ce s be twe enthe in itia l p re lim in ar y in st ru c tio n an d th e c or re c te d p re lim inaryi nstr ucti on cl ear s thi s hurdl e. Cou r tr i g htfi na l l y c l ai m s th atthe l i m i tingi ns truct i o ns gi ven bef or e and a fter L. M i l l er ’ s tes ti m ony w er e e rroneous, notj ust beca u se h erte sti m ony shoul d not hav e be enc o ns i der ed bythe j ur y a t al l, b uta l so b ec au se the l anguage o fthe i nstr ucti ons i m proper ly sugge ste d that Courtr i ght was pre sentl y charged w ith a cr i m e o f s e x u a la s s a u l ta n d th a t h e w a s a c h i l d mo l e s t e r . We ne ed not d eterm ine w he th er thes e instru ctions w ere er r o ne o us f o r the sim pl e r ea so n tha t an y e r r o r fl o wi ng fro m th em h ad n o e ffec t o n t h e o u tc om e o f th e t ria l. See U nited Sta tes v. P eters , 4 3 5 F
. 3 d 74 6 , 7 5 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. As w e hav e a lready noted , the evid en ce of Cou rtright’s gui l t wa s ov er w hel m i ng, and he has notes tabl i shed that the j ur y ’ s c o ns i de r a t i o n o fh i s p r i o r o ff ense h a d a n a ppr ec i ab l e i m pac t o n the v er di ct
. A ccord i ng l y, we fi nd that Courtr i ght ha s f ai l ed to esta b lish that the i nstr ucti ons w er e pl ai nl y e rr oneo us.
C. Cumulat i veEr r or Courtr i ght’ s fin alcl ai m o n appeal i s that, ev en i fea ch ofthe indivi du aler ro rs was harm l ess , ta ken t oge ther th e e rro r s wer e so pr ej udi ci ala s to de pr i ve hi m o fdue proce ss. Fo r Cour tri ght t o dem onst ra te cum ula ti veN o. 09

- 2880 17
error, he m us t show that there w ere at least tw o errors com m i tted duri ng the co urse o fthe tr i aland thos e er ro rs “so i nfe cted the j ury’ s del iber ati on that they deni ed [ hi m ] a fund am ental l y f ai r tr i al

. ” U nite d State s v. A vila , 557 F.3d 809, 821-22 (7th Cir. 2009). At t h e e n d o fth e d a y, th e o n l y e r r o r s C o u r t r i g ht h as e stabl i shed ar e the adm i ssi on o fhi s pri orse xual assa ult of L. M il ler un d er Ru le 4 1 3 a nd pos sibly th e j ury i n s t r u c t i o n s re l a t e d t o th a ta d mi s s i o n . E v e n i fwe assu m e tha t the s e i nt errelated errors suffi ce to qu ali fy as tw o in d ep en d en t erro rs , re ve rs al i s ap p ro p ria te o n ly i f“the er ro rs , co nsi dered to gether, co uld nothave bee n harm l ess . ” Alva r ez v. Boyd, 225 F.3d 8 2 0 , 8 25 (7th C ir. 2000 )
. A gain, ther e wa s abundant evi dence ofCourt

right’s guilt, so L . M il ler’ s testim ony and the related j ury i nstr ucti ons coul d not hav e had anyappreci abl e i m pact on the j ury’ s v er dict

. Court ri ght’ s cl ai m o fcum ula ti ve er ro r th u s fa ils. See A vila , 55 7 F
. 3d at 822.

III. C ON CLU SI ON F o r the f o r e g o i ng r e a s o ns , w e A F F I RM C ou rtright’s co nv i ct i o n.

1- 13- 11