Opinion ID: 2975952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Errors in the Probative Value Determination

Text: The district court first erred in its determination of the probative value of the defendant’s prior conviction.1 According to the district court: the prior acts are indeed “critical,” but only for the reason that the government’s evidence connecting Stout to the actual possession and receipt, though clearly sufficient for conviction, is slight. . . . While it is likely true that the 404(b) evidence is subjectively critical to this case under the 404(b) analysis, those circumstances do not make the evidence objectively any more probative. Dist. Ct. Op. at 7. Later in its opinion, the district court indicated that the “potential for . . . unfair prejudice is greater than normal because the actual evidence of possession is so limited.” Id. at 8. From these quotations, it is apparent that in determining the probative value of Stout’s prior conviction, the district court believed that the government’s need for the evidence decreased its probative value, while increasing the danger of unfair prejudice. However, the district court’s determination—and the majority’s affirmance of that determination—are both contrary to law. It is well-established that “an important indication of probative value of evidence is the prosecution’s need for the evidence in proving its case.” United States v. Vance, 871 F.2d 572, 576 (6th Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Ray, 189 F. App’x 436, 445 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 692 (2006). As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, “while prosecutorial need alone does not mean probative value outweighs prejudice, the more essential the evidence, the greater its probative value, and the less likely that a trial court should order the evidence excluded.” United States v. King, 713 F.2d 627, 631 (11th Cir. 1983) (citation and footnote omitted). The King court found an abuse of discretion in the district court’s Rule 403 analysis and reversed because “[t]he government has no case without the [disputed] testimony. In this instance the probative value is as high as it possibly could be . . . .” Id. at 632-33; see also United States v. Jackson, 886 F.2d 838, 847 (7th Cir. 1989) (reversing the exclusion of evidence that defendant refused to provide a handwriting exemplar and finding the evidence highly probative because “there appears to be no alternative means of proof with regard to an essential element of the government’s case.”); United States v. Hicks, 798 F.2d 1 I pause to note that this case illustrates the difficulty presented when a district court is asked to arrive at a Rule 403 determination pre-trial, without the benefit of having heard at least some of the government’s case, but I also understand the parties’ interest in having the issue resolved prior to the commencement of trial. This inherent difficulty notwithstanding, the errors committed by the district court in this case should not be overlooked. No. 06-6353 United States v. Stout Page 9 446, 451 (11th Cir. 1986) (stating that “[t]he greater the government’s need for evidence of intent, the more likely that the probative value will outweigh any possible prejudice.”). Of particular relevance to the instant case is the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 1999). In Rodriguez, the defendant was charged with possession of marijuana, and the district court excluded expert testimony regarding the valuation of the seized narcotics under Rule 403. Id. at 950-51. Concluding that the district court abused its discretion by devaluing the evidence’s probative value, Rodriguez explained that the defendant’s “knowledge of the existence of the drugs in the truck apparently will be the critical issue in dispute in the trial. It appears that there is no direct evidence of his knowledge, and thus the importance of any indirect evidence of knowledge becomes magnified.” Id. at 950; see also Ray, 189 F. App’x at 445 (holding that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a defendant’s prior conduct because as the only evidence available to prove his modus operandi it was highly probative). Applying this precedent to the instant case, the district court erred by stating that the government’s need did “not make the evidence objectively any more probative.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 7. The district court exacerbated its error by actually placing the prosecutor’s need for the evidence on the unfair prejudice side of the decisional scale. Likewise, the majority’s statement that “the need for the evidence does not make the evidence more likely to prove that which it is offered to prove,” Maj. Op. at 4, is erroneous and irreconcilable with our prior decisions. See, e.g., Vance, 871 F.2d at 576 (stating that “[a]n important indication of probative value of evidence is the prosecution’s need for the evidence in proving its case.”); see also United States v. Smith, 194 F.3d 1315, 1999 WL 970300, at  (6th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision) (same). Additionally, I believe that the district court’s conclusion that the probative value of Stout’s prior conviction is “limited” because it only illustrates his “prior interest in minor girls and suggest[s] his intent to knowingly receive child pornography” is incorrect. Dist. Ct. Op. at 12. I cannot understand how the fact that a piece of evidence is directly related to elements of the charged offense renders its probative value “limited,” especially when it is the primary evidence capable of speaking to those elements. A piece of evidence need not prove every element of an offense to be highly probative. Where a defendant’s prior convictions are offered to prove “an element of the crime . . . they have significant probative value.” United States v. Tan, 254 F.3d 1204, 1212 (10th Cir. 2001) (finding the exclusion of defendant’s prior DUI convictions to be an abuse of discretion because it was offered to prove the malice element of second degree murder); see also United States v. Long, 328 F.3d 655, 663 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (affirming the district court’s decision to admit evidence of defendant’s prior uncharged possession of child pornography in the defendant’s trial for child pornography and related sex offenses because such evidence was probative of the disputed elements of possession and intent). As with the drug possession charges in Rodriguez, the critical issue at trial in this case will be Stout’s knowledge and intent to possess and receive child pornography. Given the inherent difficulty in proving the inner-workings of an individual’s mind, it is unsurprising that Stout’s prior conviction for videotaping a showering young girl is critical to proving that he has a “sexual interest in children, thereby demonstrating his intent to knowingly receive child pornography.” United States v. Hall, 202 F.3d 270, 2000 WL 32010, at  (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision); see also United States v. Sebolt, 460 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir. 2006) (explaining that “[p]rior instances of sexual misconduct with a child victim may establish a defendant’s sexual interest in children and thereby serve as evidence of the defendant’s motive to commit a charged offense involving the sexual exploitation of children.”). Following the adage that “nobody knows a product better than its manufacturer,” it is difficult to comprehend what evidence could be more probative of a defendant’s knowledge that an image is child pornography—and his intent to possess such an image—than the fact that the defendant himself is a convicted manufacturer of child pornography. Although the majority may not believe that Stout’s prior conviction for videotaping a showering girl No. 06-6353 United States v. Stout Page 10 strongly demonstrates that he “had knowledge of the subject matter [of child pornography] outside of the ordinary ken,” Maj. Op. at 4, such a conclusion seems inescapable to me. In accord with the authorities previously cited, the importance of Stout’s prior conviction to proving the government’s case does not minimize its probativeness as the district court stated; rather, it “magnifie[s]” it. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d at 950-51. Combining this highly probative evidence with Rule 403’s policy favoring admissibility and our requirement that in reviewing Rule 403 decisions “we look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect,” United States v. Perry, 438 F.3d 642, 648 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), to be substantially outweighed in this case, the danger of unfair prejudice would have to be exceedingly great. It is not.