## 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

- 1597 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ONAL D J. M C G UIRE , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C R 716-1

—Rebec ca R. Pal lmey er, Judge

. A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 9, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 2, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, T INDER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The defe nd ant w as c onvict ed b y a j ur y o ft r a v e l i n gi n i n t e r s t a t e a n d f o r e i g n c o mm er ce f o r the pur po se o fha vi ng s ex wi tha min o r, a nd w as sente nced to 25 yea rs i n pri son. H i s a pp ealar gues that w hi l e he indeed had se x w i th m i nor s o n tr i ps that cr o ss ed st at e an d na ti o na lb o unda r i es, s ex was no t th e pu rpos e of the tr avel

. H e further ar gues that the j ud ge shoul d have e xcl ud ed the tes tim ony ofo therm i nor s, besid es the o ne wh om he was char ged with m ol est i ng,2 N o. 09

- 1597 und erRule 40 3 o fthe Feder alRule s o fEvi dence, o n t h e g r ou n d th at th e a d d itio n al t es tim on y w as u n d u ly prej ud i ci al

. H e doe s no t cha l l enge hi s s entence
. M cGu i re was a pr om i nent J esui t p rie st w ho in 198 3 had beg u n serv i ng as the spi ri tualdi re cto r ofM othe r Te r es a’ s o r dero fnun s

— the M i ssi onar i es ofChari ty

— an d as h e r c on fes so r. A res id en t o f C an isiu s H ou se , in Evanston, I l l i noi s, a dw el lin g fo r J esui t pr i est s, he l ed retreats allover the w orld m od eled on th e sp iri tu al exerci se s o fS aintI g na tius o fLo y o l a, the f o unde r o fthe J esui t o rder . In 1997, wh en hi s m ol est ati on o fa boy n am ed D om in ick be ga n, he w as eld er ly

— 67

— an d suffer i ng fro m a l ong l i st ofdi sease s, i ncl ud i ng di abet es an d a sthm a, a nd di sabi l i ti es r es ulti ngfr o m fr eque nt s u r g e r i e s . H e r e c r ui t e d b o y s s u c h a s D o mi n i c kt o a c c o mpany h i m o n hi s t ra vel s t o the r etr eat s, expl ai ni ng tha t h e n e ed ed th e b oy s t o c ar ry h is b ag s, to p ro vid e h im wi thmedi ca ti o ns , phy si ca lthe r apy, a nd m as sa g es , a nd to w ash hi s feet
. H e use d the boy s for sex as w ell

. Do m inick w as a fatherl e s s c hi l d o f1 3 wh o becam e the de fe nd a nt ’ s wa r d. F r o m 1 99 7 to 2 00 1 th e defen dan t e nga g ed i n fr eque nt sexualact i vi ty w i th Dom i ni ck, o ften on tr i ps to r etr eat s; the det ai l s o fthe acti vi ty need not detai n us. H e e ngage d i n s i mi l a r a c t s wi th the f o uro the r bo y s wh o t e s t i fi e d, and i nd eed with m any m or e. H i s s exual pred atio n (w hich had begu n long be fore

— perhaps decades before

— hi s m o l es ta ti o n o fDo m i ni ckb eg an ) i nv o l ve d the f ol l owing m odus ope r andi : sl eepi ng i n the sam e be d w i th the bo ys; r ecei vi ng m ass age s fro m them thatbeg anN o. 09

- 1597 3 i nnocentl y b ut ev ol ved i nto se x u al fondling o fhi m that he com m anded them to perf or m ; displ aying p or nogr aphic m ovi es and m aga zi nes t o “educ at e” the boy s ab o uts ex a nd the “ be au tyo fthe h um anf o r m ”; e l i ci ting co nfes si ons tha t th eyha d m as tu rba te d a nd thr ea te ni ng to expose as a m asturbat orany boywh o com p lai ned ab ou t m ole st at ion ; an d ins ist en c e t h at co m p l a i n t w ou ld be futi l e be cause no o ne would bel i eve thata pri esto f the defendant’s pro m i nence was a pedoph i l e. T h e d efe n d an t’s re ligiou s su p er iors b eg an to b e s u sp ici ous o fhim as ea rl y a s 1 991, tho ugh he was notdefro cked unti l20 08. In 199 1 they o rder ed hi m notto tr avel w ith a nyone und erthe age o f18

. In 199 5 the th reshol d w as ra i sed to 21 and i n 200 1 t o 30. In 200 0 they f orbade hi s hav i ng hi s y oung a ssi sta nts s ta y with hi m atCani si u s H ou se. H e co nti nued to tr avelwith boy s a fterbeing f orbi dd en to do s o. H i s defense at tr i al w as that Dom i ni ck h ad co ncocte d a f al se cl ai m o fse xual m ol est ati on in the hope o fo btaini ng m oney . Th e de fe nd a ntwa s c ha r g e d wi th vi o l a t i ng1 8 U. S

. C. § 24 23 (b ) , whi chi s o ne o ff o urc l o se l y r el at ed pr o vi si o ns ofthe federa lcr i m i nalco de. The f our ar e a s fol l ows: 18 U . S.C. § 2421 : W h oev erkno w i ngl y t ra nsport s any ind i vi du ali n i nter sta te orfo re i gn co m m er ce, o r i n an y T er ri tory o r Posse ssi on o fthe U ni ted S tat es, wi thi nt en t th ats uchi ndi vi du al e ng ag e i n pr o st i tu
ti on , or in a ny se xual acti vi ty f orwh i ch any perso n c an be charg ed w i th a cri m i nalo ffense, o r att em pts to do so, s ha l lb e fi ne d u nd e r thi s t i t l e o r i mpr i s o ne d no t m o r e th an1 0 y ea r s, o r b o th

.4 N o. 09

- 1597 18 U . S . C . § 2423(a): Tran sp ort a ti on w it h i n ten t to engage i n cr i m i nal sexual act i vi ty.

— A per so n who knowingl y t ra nsport s a n ind i vi d u al w ho has not att ai ned the a ge of18 ye ar s in i nter sta te orf orei gn com m er ce, o r i n any com m onw eal th, te rr i tory o r po ss es si o n o fthe Uni te d S ta te s, wi thi nten t tha t th e i ndi v i du a le ng a g e i n pr o s t i t ut i o n, o r i n a nys e xual ac ti vi tyf o r whi cha ny person ca n b e ch ar g ed wi tha cr i m i na lo ffen se , s ha l lb e fi ne d unde r thi s ti tl e an d i m pri sone d not l ess than 10 yea rs o r f orl i fe. 18 U . S . C . § 2 4 2 3 (b ): Travel w it h i n ten t to enga ge in illi cit sex u al con d u ct.

— A perso n w ho tr avel s in i nter sta te com m er ce o r tr avel s into the Unite d Sta tes , ora U ni ted S tat es ci ti zen o r an al i en adm i tte d f o r p er m an en t r es i den ce i n the Uni te d S ta te s who tr av el s i n fo r ei g n c o m m er ce , f o r the purpo se o fe ngag i ng i n any il l i ci t s exual co nd uct with anothe r perso n shal l be fi ned und er thi s ti tl e orim p ris oned no t m o r e th an3 0 y ea r s, o r b o th

. 18 U . S.C. § 2423 ( c) : Engagi ng i n il l i ci tsex ual condu ct i n f or ei gn plac es.

— A ny Un i ted St ate s ci ti zen o r al i en ad m itt ed for p er m an en t res id en c e w h o t ra ve ls in f or ei gn co m m er ce, and e ngage s in any i l l i ci t s exual conduct w i th anotherper son shal lbe fi ned und er th i s ti tl e o r i m pr i so ne d no t m o r e th an3 0 y ea r s, o r b o th

. Se c tio n 24 21 is th e o r i gin al M an n A c t, as am en d ed in m i norr espect s. S ecti on 2 423( a) , i ntended to prot ect m i no r s fr o m s ex ua lpr eda ti o n, mir r o r s the M ann Actb ut i m poses m or e seve re penal ti es. S ecti on 24 23 (b ), th e p ro visi on under which the d efendant w as pros ecuted, wasN o. 09

- 1597 5 ad d ed to exp an d the p rotectio n o f m inors stil l furth er; i t p u n i s h e s t r a v e l i n i n t e r s t a t e c o mme r c e e v e n i fno m i nori s t ra nspo rted, i fthe pu rpos e o fthe tr aveli s s ex w i th a m i nor . ( Pro secuto rs fre q u en tly use thi s s ecti on t o pr o se cut e p erson s who cr o ss s ta te l i ne s to r en dez vo us w i th m i nor s whom t h ey m eeti n onl i ne chatr oo m s. Se e, e.g ., U nited States v. B uttr ick, 432 F.3d 373 ( 1st C ir. 20 05 ). ) S ecti on 2 4 2 3 ( c ) wa s a d d e d t o p u n i s h p e r s o n s wh o tr av el in fore ign c o m m e r c e a n d h av e s ex w ith a m in or in th e co ur se o fthe t r i p r eg ar dl es s o fw ha t t he de fen dan t i ntended w hen he s et out on i t. I t i s appa r en t th ati f, a s th e j ur y f o und, the de fend an t had m ol est ed Dom i ni ck on thei r tr avel s, he v i ol ate d se c tio n s 2 42 1, 24 23 (a), an d 24 23 (c ). E .g . , U ni t e d S t at e s v. B onty , 38 3 F .3d 57 5, 57 8 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sno w , 507F.2d 2 2 , 2 3 ( 7t h C ir. 19 74 ); U nite d State s v. H it t, 47 3 F
. 3d 14 6, 1 50 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 6)

. Buti ne xpl i cabl y the g o ve r nm en t ch ar g ed th e defen dan t o nl y w ith vi o l at i ng sect i on 2 423(b) , wh i ch r equi re s th at the trav el be f or th e p u rp os e o f en ga gin g in ille ga l se x u al a c tiv ity . Th is charg i ng dec ision ( w hi ch the gov er nm ent’ s l aw yerwas unabl e to e xpl ain to us a t th e o r ala r g um en t) e nabl ed th e defe nd ant to argue that the purpos e o fhi s t ri ps w as m er el y to conduct re tr eat s; sex w as not the p u rp ose but a we l c o me b y pr o du c t( i fthe g o v e r nme nt ’ s e v i de nc e w as bel i eve d) o fthe opportunit ies that the r etr eat s cre ate d, as the boy s w er e m or e vul nerabl e w h en far fro m hom e a nd the defe nd ant’ s m ol est ati on o fthem w as l ess l i kely to be detect ed by hi s r el i gi ous s up er i or s, w ho a s we know had suspected h im f orm any y ear s o f6 N o. 09

- 1597 b e i nga c hi l d mo l e s t e r y e th ad t a k e n no e ffe c t i v e s t e ps t o p r o t e c ty o u n gb o y s fr o m h i m. T h e c o u rt s h av e h ad tro u b le d ea lin g w ith ca se s in w hi ch the tr avelpro secute d und ersec tion 2423 ( b) m ay have had du alpurposes , o nl y o ne o fwh i ch w as to have sex with m i nor s. The st atute sa ys “the” pu rp os e m ust be s ex r athe r tha n “ a” pur po se, b uti n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vang, 12 8 F
. 3d 1065 , 10 68 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) , we app ro ved a j u ry i nstr ucti on wh i ch sai d that s ex di dn ’ t hav e t o be “the sol e purpose ” o fthe tr avel, tho ugh i t di d ha ve t o be “a d om in an t p u rp os e, as op p os ed to an inc id en ta l on e. A perso n m ay have m or e than one dom i nant purpose for tra ve lin g a c ro ss a st at e lin e.” T o s p ea k of m u ltip le d om in an t p u rp os es is n otid i o m a tic , bu t g ive n th e e viden ce i n Vang t h e preci se w or ding ofthe i nstr ucti on h ar d ly m at t e re d . Ot h er ca se s, to o, fas te n on “d om in an t,” butthe n de fi ne i t do wn to mean“ si g ni fi ca nt, ” “e ffi ci en t and com pel l i ng, ” “ predom i nat[ i ng] , ” “ m oti vating, ” no t “incid en tal, ” or not “an i nc iden t” to the de fend an t’s pu rpos e in tr avel i ng. E.g
. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jul i an , 42 7 F.3 d 47 1, 48 5 (7th C i r . 2 00 5); U ni t e d S t at e s v. H it t, sup ra , 47 3 F .3d at15 2; U nited S ta tes v. Ha yw a rd, 35 9 F
. 3d 631, 63 7- 38 ( 3d Cir

. 20 04); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ac ham , 11 5 F
. 3d 1488 , 14 95 -96 (10 th C ir. 19 97 ); U nite d State s v. C am pbel l , 49 F.3 d 10 79 , 108 3-8 4 (5 th C ir. 19 95 ); U nite d S ta te s v. E ll is , 93 5 F .2d 38 5, 3 90 (1s t C ir. 19 91 ); U nite d State s v. B enne tt, 364 F.2d 77, 79 (4th C ir. 1966). T he se verba l form ulas are straine d ; the cou rts tu rn hand spri ngs t ry i ng to d efi ne “dom i nant” a s i fi t were a st at u to ry te rm , see , e.g., U nited Sta tes v . M i l ler, 14 8 F
. 3dN o. 09

- 1597 7 207, 21 2- 13 ( 2d Cir

. 19 98) , wh i ch it is n ot. I t would be bett erto as k whether, had a se x m oti ve not been p re se n t, th e t ri p w o u ld n oth av e t ak en p lac e o r w ou ld h av e d iffer ed su b st an tia lly. Se e , e .g ., U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sno w , sup ra , 507F.2d at24 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fa r ley , 607 F.3 d 12 9 4 , 133 5 (1 1t h C ir. 20 10 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ac ham , sup ra , 11 5 F
. 3d at 1495

- 96. W e ca n pla ce the b l am e forj ud i ci alpre occupati on w i th the word “dom i na n t” o n the Suprem e Cour t, wh i ch i n M o rtensen v. U nited Sta tes , 322 U
. S. 369, 374 ( 1944 ) , a M a nnAc tc a s e , s a i d tha te ng a g i ngi n f o rb i dde n sexual acti vi ty “m ust be the dom in an t pu rpos e o fsuch i nt er st at e m o ve m en t. ” Tha t was di ctum , bec au se the sol e pu rpos e of the m ove m ent i n questi on w as to give seve ra lpro sti tutes an innocent vacat i on

— th at is, on e in whi c h the y wo ul d notbe p ly ing the ir trad e. T he re w er e n otm u ltip le p u r p os es , of w h ich on e w as se x u al, so the r e wa s n o o c c a s i o n t o i de nt i fy a do mi na ntp urpose . Bu t l ate r c ase s, i gnor i ng J usti ce Hol m es’ s a dm oni ti on t o th ink th i ng s no t wor ds, ha ve t en ded to t r ea t “do m i na nt pu rpos e” as i fit w er e the l anguage o fthe M ann A ct i ts el f, a nd, l at ers ti l l, a s i fi t wer e th e l an g ua g e o fthe sta tutes, incl ud i ng 18 U
. S. C. § 2 423(b) , thatr est ate an d exte nd the A ct; and fro m the ca ses th e term en te r ed j ur y i ns truct i o ns . ( The e vo l ut i o n o f“ do m i na nt pur po se ” i s co ns i der ed atl en g thi n o uro pi ni o n in U nited St at e s v. Vang, sup ra , 12 8 F
. 3d at 1070-72 .) The Fo urth Ci r cui t st at ed sensibl y i n U nite d State s v. B enne tt, sup ra , 364 F. 2d at 77, 78 n . 4 , t h at “the ‘ dom i nant m oti ve’ te st se ems c o m pl et ely i na ppr o pr i at e i n a ny c as e i nv o l ving8 N o. 09

- 1597

m ul ti pl e pur po se s, s o m e o fwhi chwer e l eg i ti m at e but on e of w h ich is pr os c rib ed b y [s ec tio n ] 24 21 ,” an d eq u ally by sect i on 2 42 3(b). But the defe nd ant doe s no t chal l enge the j ury i nstr ucti ons, so the onl y questi on i s whether th e j u r y w a s u n r e a s o n ab l e in c o n v i c t i n gh i m. To a ns werthe que st i o n we ne ed to b e cl ea r abou t th e m ea ni ngo fthe sta tu to r y t er m “ tr av el s” ; tha t wi l lg etus furtherthan w or ry i ng the word “dom i nant. ” To saythat a s e x u a lp r e d a t o r “ t r a v e l s ” in i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e i g n c o mm er ce t o a r etr eati s no t a fulldescr i pti on of the tr avel in t h i s ca se. H e t ra vel s in i nter sta te orf or ei gn co m m er ce to a r etr eati n the com pany ofa boy h e in te n ds to m ol est

— th ati s th e ful lde sc r i pti o n. The pur po se o fthe tr avelso understo od i s t o engag e i n i l l ega l sexualco nd uct. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ac ham , sup ra , 11 5 F
. 3d at 1495

- 96; U nite d State s v. E ll is , sup ra , 93 5 F
. 3d at 390- 91. A t the o ra largum ent w e put the f ol l owing hypotheti cal c as e to the defe nd ant’ s l aw yer . A m an wh o tr avel s fre quentl y abro ad on business has tw o ass i sta nts. One i s a n o l de r woma n. The o the r i s yo un ga nd b e a ut i ful

. He n e e ds only o n e of th e assistan ts to acc om p an y him ; they are equa l l y c o m pet en t; b uthe c ho o se s t o t ak e th e y o ung w om an becau se he hop es to ha ve sex w ith he r. Th e pu rp os e o f h is t ra ve l i s b u sin es s; b u t t h e p u rp os e o f h is tr av el w ith th is a ss ist an t ra th er th an t h e o th er on e is sex

— leg alse x, i n the exam ple , but that’ s no t the poi nt; the point i s that the purpose o fhi s cho osing thi s par ti cu lar w ay to tr av el i s sex ra th er th an b u sin es s . C f

. U nited S t a t e s v . Sn ow , sup ra , 507F.2d at24 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ac ham , sup ra , 115 F.3d a t 1495-96. Th e d efend an t’sN o. 09

- 1597 9 l aw yerwas unabl e t o distin gui sh the pre sent case fro m our hypotheti calcas e. It w ou ld b e d i f fer en t if inth at ca se th e t ra ve lin g b u sine ssman h ad o nl y o ne a ss i st an t, the b ea ut i fuly o ung w om an. H e ho pes thathe m i ght ha ve sex with h er o n th e tr i p, y ethe w oul d ha ve made th e sa m e tr i p, t ak i ng h er w ith h im , e v e n i fh e h ad h ad n o s u c h d es ign s. In th ate ve nts ex woul d not ha ve be enthe pur po se o fthe tr i p w i th her, but a pos sib le b onu s that co uld however h av e p lay ed n o p ar t in h is d ec i s i o n t o t ak e t h e t rip

— he w as or dered to t ak e i t a nd needed, f orpurel y b usi ness reason s, to tak e the assistan t w ith him

. Com p are Ha nsen v. Haff , 29 1 U.S

. 55 9, 56 3 ( 1934 ) ( “i fthe pur po se o fthe j ou rne y was no t se xua li nt er co ur se , tho ug h tha t be c o ntem pla ted, the sta tute i s no t v i ol ate d”), withGhadi al iv. U ni t e d S t at es , 1 7 F
. 2d 236, 23 7 ( 9th Ci r. 19 27) ( the defendant “had a ri ght t o cause [h is se cre tar y] to be tr anspor t e d i n i nt e r s t a t e c o mm e r c e i n the di s c ha r g e ofher se cr et ar i aldut i es wi th o utt r an sg r es singthe pr o vi si o ns ofthe l aw ; b u t i f, i n additi on t o the s ecr eta ri alduti es, i t was al so hi s purpose to h ave sexuali nter cour se w i th h er , an d , en te rt ain in g s u c h p u rp os e, tr an sp or t ed h er in intersta te com m erce, he w ou ld be gu il ty”). A fter19 91 the defendant w as f orbi dd en to tr avelwith m i nor s t o hi s r etr eat s

— and a l l the tr i ps w ith D om i ni ck to o kpl ace afte r tha t. I fa t r i p ha s dualpur po se s, o ne l i ci t buti nt en ded to b o l st era n i l l i ci t se xua lpur po se , the sexualpurpose i s “ the” pu rpos e, i n a r eas onabl e s ense of the w ord

. Sup p ose a salesm an em p loyed by Sears Roebuck i s di re cted byS ear s t o tr avelto S i ngapor e t o10 N o. 09

- 1597 sel lcl othe s dry er s there

. Instea d he tr avel s t o Bangkok be ca us e h e wa n t s t o p a t r o n i z e c h i l d p r o s t i t u t e s . He se lls so m e c lot h e s d r y er s in B an gk ok in t h e in te rv als betw een his visi ts to the child p rostitute s and alters th e invoi ces to m ake i t see m that the sal es occur re d in Si ngapore. T h e purpose o fhi s t ra velwould be sex r ather than b usi ness, tho ugh busi ness w oul d be t ra nsacte d du ring the tr i p. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sn ow , sup ra , 507 F
. 2d at 2 4; U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ac ham , sup ra , 1 1 5 F
. 3 d a t1 4 9 5- 96; U nited Sta tes v. Fa rley, sup ra , 6 07F.3d at13 35 ; U nited Sta tes v. Br e dim us , 234 F. Sup p . 2d 639, 646 (N

. D
. Tex
. 2002), affi rm ed , 3 5 2 F .3d 20 0 (5 th C ir. 20 03 ). Th e d efe n d an t in o urc as e ha d, s o f ara s appe ar s, b r o ad l at i tu de co nc e r ningthe n umb e r a nd l o c a t i o n o fthe r e t r e a t s h e l e d, and he confi gure d h is travel s t o opti m i ze hi s s exual acti vi ty. W e tu r n t o the de fen dan t’ s obj ecti o n t o the t es ti m o ny by the four othe r boy s ( l i ke D om ini ck, adult s when they tes ti fi ed) w h om he m ol est ed. The di str i ct j ud ge w as co n c e r n e d ab o u tth e p o s s ib i l i t y o fu n d u e p r ej u d i c e a nd hel p fully pl aced o n the re cor d her pretr i aldi scussi on o f th e i s s u e wi th c o u n s e l, f a c i l i t a t i n ga p pel l a t e r e v i e w. The t esti m o ny was a dm i ss ibl e as e vi den ce o fthe de fen dant’s m odus ope r andi( and thus not excl ud abl e under Rule 404(b) o fthe Feder alRule s o fEvi dence, se e U nited St at e s v. Zahurs ky, 580 F.3d 5 1 5 , 5 24-25 (7th Cir. 2009)) and i t w as al so adm i ssibl e und er Rules 413 and 4 14 as evi dence ofthe defe n d an t’s previ ous c ri m es ofse xual ass aul t a nd chi l d m ol est ati on, d em onst ra ti ng a propensi ty to com m i t s uch cri m es. E .g., U nited S ta tes v . Ro gers , 587 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).N o. 09

- 1597 11 Li k e o th ere vi den ce , s uc h test i m o ny i s su bj ec t to the lim ita tio n s th at R u le 403 p lac es on ev id en c e th a t is u n d u ly p rej u d icia l, c on fu sin g, or re p et itio u s. Id

. at82 2- 23. The j ud ge w as concerned l estthe j ury be o ver w hel m ed b y p ro fou n d ly d ist u rb in g a n d h igh ly em ot ion al t es tim o ny o fnu m erous wi tn es se s, whi chwoul d de fl ec t th e j ur o r s fr o m c ar efulc o ns i der at i o n o fthe o nl y a ctua li ss ue th eyha d t o de ci de, whi chwas whethe r the de fen dan t h ad tra ve led w ith D om in ickfor th e p u r p os e o f se x u ally abu sing hi m . On the ba si s o fthe str i ki ng si m i l ar i ti es am on g th e e xperi ences ofea ch ofthe vi cti m s, the j ud ge te nt at i ve l y rule d tha t sh e woul d a l l o w the g o ve r nm en t to cal lo ne witnes s w hom the defe nd ant had ab used be si des D o m i ni ck, whi l e r es er vingde ci si o n o n fo ur othe rs unti lafterthe defe nd ant’ s cr oss - exam i nati on o f Dom i ni ck. In the end she al l owed te sti m ony by thre e othe rs . The evi dence w as m ate ri alb ecause the defe nse was th a tD o mi n i c k was a l i a r . A l th o u g h th e d e fe n d a n th i msel f d i d not t est i fy, the defe nse pr ese nted m or e witnesse s th anthe g overn m en t

— wi tn es se s who te st i fi ed to the defe nd ant’ s ster l i ng char acte r. The ev i dence ofthe othe r bo y s es tabl i sh ed th e defen dan t’ s pr o pen si tyf o r, a nd m odus ope r andio f, m ol est ati on o fyo u n g b oys and by doi ng so bo l ste re d D om i ni ck’ s t est i m ony. T h e d e f e n d an t p ar tic u lar ly ob j ec ts to th e b oy s’ t es tim ony about the sh am e a nd fearthatdi ssuaded them fr o m t e l l i ng the i r pa r e nt s o r o the r s ab o ut wha the ha d d on e t o th em u n til th ey h ad gro w n u p an d es c ap e d h is contr ol

. But thi s t est i m ony w as i nvi ted bythe bruta lcr oss -12 N o. 09

- 1597

ex ami na ti o n o fDo m i ni ck by the de fen dan t’ s l awy era nd by th e ar g um en t th at Domi ni ck ’ s f ai l ur e to te ll any o ne ab ou t w h at th e d efe n d an t w as d o i n g to h im u n til 20 05 , l o nga fte r the s ex ua lmolest at i o n h ad ce as ed ( th e d e fe n d a n tmo l e s t e d b o y s , a n d e v e nt ua l l y b o y s b e c o me m en ) , i ndi ca ted fabr i ca ti o n. Thi s ar g um en t en ti tl ed th e g o ve r nm en t to e l i ci t i n redi r ec t ex ami na ti o n the r ea so ns Dom i ni ck and the o therbo ys had not r eve aled t h e defe nd a nt ’ s a c t s s o o n a ft e r the y o c c ur r e d. S ee U nited Sta tes v. Hensley, 574 F.3d 38 4 , 3 89 -90 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ); U nited St at e s v. Plu m m an , 409 F.3d 919 , 928-29 (8t h C ir. 2005 ); U nited Sta tes v. P o w ers , 59 F. 3d 1460, 1464, 1467( 4th Cir. 1995 ). A FFI RMED .

12- 2- 10