Opinion ID: 3151132
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dudley's Evidentiary Challenge

Text: Dudley next argues that the district court committed reversible error by permitting the government to play two thirtysecond video excerpts depicting child pornography for the jury in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 403. noting that nothing turned on the distinction. The evidence adequately supports the district court's findings. - 17 -
We review the district court's Rule 403 determination for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mangual-Corchado, 139 F.3d 34, 43 n.22 (1st Cir. 1998). Under the rule, court[s] may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice . . . or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403. But this rule protects defendants only against evidence that would produce unfair prejudice, as '[b]y design, all evidence is meant to be prejudicial.' United States v. Breton, 740 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir. 2014) (emphasis and brackets in original) (quoting United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 122 (1st Cir. 2000)). And [w]e give great deference to a district judge's balancing of probative value versus unfair prejudice. Id.
Prior to trial on the possession matter, Dudley filed a motion in limine offering to stipulate that the CDs found in his home contained child pornography as defined by federal law, and thus, sought to preclude the government from showing the jury any images of child pornography. Alternatively, Dudley sought to limit publication to one image and/or to limit the image, or images, to those that were less inflammatory, such as those depicting children in sexually suggestive poses rather than, for example, an image of adults sexually abusing children. Dudley also sought - 18 - to limit the images to show only the bodies of the children because [t]he expressions on the faces of the children who are being abused are heartbreaking and [would] most certainly inflame the passions of the jury. For its part, the government sought to introduce three videos (out of approximately one hundred) from the DVDs found in Dudley's office14 and to play a thirty-second clip from each for the jury. The first two videos were approximately twelve and fifteen minutes long, respectively, and depicted sexual activity between adults and children.15 The forensic evidence showed that both of these videos had been opened using the password-protected laptop computer seized from Dudley's bedroom. The third video, which the government ultimately chose not to play for the jury, was over two minutes long and also showed explicit images of children. That video had been shared from Dudley's IP address and downloaded by Agent Conley during the course of his investigation. In opposing Dudley's motion, the government argued that: (1) it was not obligated to accept Dudley's stipulation and was entitled 14 Evidence showed that a similar Phillips DVD was found in Dudley's office containing church-related materials. During his interrogation with Agents Fife and Conley Dudley had claimed to be a pastor and said that he held weekly services in his apartment. 15These video files were titled: pthc -- open -- euro family young sex education very young girl a.mpg and (pthc) compilation (sex bj cum).wmv. The third video was titled: (pthc) 8yr mom rubbs daughter.mpg. - 19 - to prove its case by evidence of its own choice; (2) the nature of the videos was relevant to issues of knowledge and lack of mistake that the videos were child pornography; and (3) introduction of those particular videos (along with the forensic evidence) would demonstrate the unlikelihood that the videos were present in [Dudley's] apartment without his knowledge. After viewing the challenged videos (and proposed excerpts) and conducting its Rule 403 balancing, the district court concluded that Dudley's requested limitations would limit the probative value of the proffered evidence while doing little to nothing to limit the prejudicial impact, which the district court noted was not unfair prejudice in any event. In the district court's assessment, the government was entitled to present a limited number of images to meet its burden to prove -- not just possession -- but knowledge and lack of mistake. The district court further determined it could not force the government to accept Dudley's offer to stipulate [b]ecause the images [were] part of the Government's narrative and probative on multiple elements of the offense. In the end, two (of three) videos were admitted during the government's case-in-chief, and two thirty-second excerpts were played for the jury during the government's closing argument. - 20 -
On appeal, Dudley argues that the district court committed reversible error when it permitted the government to play these thirty-second excerpts of child pornography to the jury because the -- admittedly disturbing -- videos created a risk of unfair prejudice that far outweighed the probative value. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. Acknowledging that the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice and is not required to accept a defendant's offer to stipulate, see Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 183 (1997) ([A] defendant's Rule 403 objection offering to concede a point generally cannot prevail over the Government's choice to offer evidence showing guilt and all the circumstances surrounding the offense.), Dudley nevertheless argues that his willingness to stipulate that the images on the disks were child pornography lessened the probative value of the videos to such an extent that it was reversible error for the district court to allow them to be played -- no matter how brief the excerpt.16 Although Dudley was willing to stipulate to 16Dudley relies on United States v. Merino-Balderrama, 146 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 1998) and United States v. Cunningham, 694 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2012) to argue that it was reversible error to play the video excerpts to the jury given Dudley's willingness to stipulate. But those cases are easily distinguishable. In MerinoBalderrama, the government offered no direct or circumstantial evidence that the defendant ever saw the films -- only the box covers. 146 F.3d at 762-63. As such, the court concluded that - 21 - the content of the DVDs, however, he consistently denied knowledge, maintaining that he did not know what was on the disks and that he had never accessed the files. Consequently, his proposed stipulation only went so far. See United States v. Eads, 729 F.3d 769, 778 (7th Cir. 2013) (A stipulation about the content of charged images only goes so far if it is silent with respect to the defendant's knowledge of the images in his possession.). Framing these issues for the jury at opening, defense counsel queried [w]ho was in possession, who was in knowing possession, and noted: the Government references knowing possession of the diskettes and that's all this case is about. Defense counsel explained to the jury that the evidence would show Dudley ran a computer salvage operation and that he had lots of computers . . . lots of hard drives . . . and all kinds of different ways in which one could come into possession of computer material . . . . Given Dudley's salvage business, defense counsel emphasized Dudley's disavow[al] that all of this stuff is his, the films were less probative of scienter than were their covers. Id. at 762. The court's decision in Cunningham largely turned on the fact that the district judge had not personally examined the videos before deciding to admit them under Rule 403. 694 F.3d at 388 (explaining that because the District Court abused its discretion when it decided not to watch the videos before admitting them under Rule 403, its underlying Rule 403 determination is not entitled to the full range of deference that we would normally give to it on appeal). - 22 - concluding if you don't do something intelligently, if you don't do something voluntarily, you do something because of either mistake or accident or error, you're not knowingly in possession of that item. Despite Dudley's proposed stipulation, then, it seems clear that the government would have retained the burden to prove that Dudley had knowingly possessed child pornography and, therefore, showing the images served a valid, non-cumulative, purpose. Eads, 729 F.3d at 778. The videos provided evidence that anyone who played those files for just thirty seconds -- files that had been opened and played on Dudley's password-protected laptop -- would have known that the videos contained child pornography, thus making it more probable that Dudley knowingly possessed child pornography. The government offered the clips, along with forensic evidence that the graphically-titled files were downloaded and played on Dudley's computer and that the same password-assigned user had searched the Ares program for keywords typical of child pornography (e.g., teen sex, family sex, inzest, kids having sex, voyeir young girls, and daughter sex), to prove Dudley's knowledge and lack of mistake or accident. Indeed, before playing the excerpts,17 the prosecutor explained that he was going 17 Dudley further claims that the risk of unfair prejudice was maximized because the clips were played during the closing - 23 - to show the very first 30 seconds of the two videos so that the jury could consider if there was any question in their minds whether someone who accessed the DVD, opened the file, and saw just the very first seconds would know that these videos constituted child pornography and that the possessor of those DVDs was knowingly possessing child pornography. And the government specifically cautioned that although the jury had to see a very short excerpt from these videos to appreciate what it was, they should not make a decision based on raw emotion or because [they] view these videos as being evil. While [t]he trial judge's job is to avoid unfair prejudice, the district court is not required to scrub the trial clean of all evidence that may have an emotional impact. United States v. Morales-Aldahondo, 524 F.3d 115, 120 (1st Cir. 2008). argument, immediately before the jury was asked to deliberate. The government counters that this argument was waived because, although Dudley objected to the publishing of the videos, he did not specifically object to the videos being played during the prosecution's closing. Indeed, when the prosecutor explained that he planned to show the videos during his closing, defense counsel stated that this procedure was [f]ine. In any event, this argument need not detain us long, since even assuming, favorably to Dudley, that the argument was not waived, the distinction is not determinative. Watching these videos was no doubt incredibly difficult whether they were viewed at the end of the first trial day (with a full night to dwell on them) or during the closing and from the vista of a cold appellate record we cannot say that the difference necessarily tips the scales in Dudley's favor. United States v. Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50, 74 (1st Cir. 2010) (noting that [t]he trial court has wide latitude in determining when the amount of unfair prejudice has tipped the scale too far). - 24 - Here, the judge viewed the videos, and the proposed excerpts, and properly balanced the competing concerns of Rule 403 in denying Dudley's objection to showing the video excerpts to the jury. Id. The video excerpts (in combination with the forensic evidence) were probative of whether Dudley knowingly possessed child pornography and rebutted Dudley's defense that he mistakenly acquired the DVDs. We see no reversible error. THE PERJURY MATTER As the reader may recall, after testifying at the suppression hearing in the possession matter, Dudley was charged by indictment with one count of false declaration before the court, stemming from statements he made under oath that he had invoked his right to an attorney. Here, Dudley challenges the district court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal in the perjury matter, arguing that the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his statements were false, nor did it prove that [he] knew they were false at the time he made them. After review, we affirm.