Opinion ID: 4562699
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Convictions

Text: In an unrelated case, Ralston pleaded nolo contendere to two felony counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child in Kansas state court. The indecent conduct involved J.W., who is M.W.’s younger sister. The district court admitted into evidence a certified copy of Ralston’s state convictions. J.W. was supposed to testify as a prosecution witness, but the government, before the start of trial, informed the district court that J.W. was on bed rest due to preterm pregnancy contractions and would not be available to testify at trial. Based on J.W.’s unavailability, the government sought to admit the transcript of J.W.’s testimony given during a state preliminary hearing on January 14, 2010. Ralston’s trial counsel objected, and the district court did not admit the transcript. The court, however, allowed J.W.’s testimony to be read to the jury. J.W.’s testimony described Ralston’s inappropriate touching of her vaginal area when she was around 11 or 12 years old. She also recounted that he raped her when she was 13 years old. She did not tell anyone until she was a junior in college. 9 “In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.” Fed. R. Evid. 413(a). Likewise, “[i]n a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.” Fed. R. Evid. 414(a). -10- Ball; M.W.; and Mark Elhardt, a Rock of Ages Church member, testified that Ralston admitted to having sexual relations with J.W. On direct examination, M.W. told the jury and district court that she decided to leave Ralston in January 2009. The government later asked, “The fact that [Ralston] . . . also had sexual contact with your sister still weighed very heavily on your heart at that time as well?” Trial Tr., Vol. 2, at 474. M.W. responded, “Yes.” Id. Ralston did not challenge the government’s question. At the time of trial, Ralston and M.W. were divorced. 2. Accusations of Sexual Assault and Child Molestation in India In August 2007, the Ralston family traveled to India to perform missionary work after Ralston’s discharge from the Army. While the Ralstons were in India, M.W. hired a native female housekeeper to assist her with daily housework. M.W. recounted three incidents from India. First, the housekeeper informed M.W. that Ralston requested sexual favors from her. Second, M.W. required hospitalization due to illness. When M.W. returned from the hospital, the housekeeper reported to her that Ralston raped her four times during M.W.’s absence. Third, the housekeeper’s daughter disclosed to M.W. that Ralston inappropriately touched her pubic region and that she felt pain in that area. M.W. testified that, when she confronted Ralston about the accusations, he asked her to apologize to the housekeeper and her daughter. In addition, M.W. remembered Ralston asking her to buy chocolate for the housekeeper’s daughter. The district court instructed the jury that M.W.’s testimony consisted of hearsay and that it could not be considered for the truth of the matter asserted. It, nonetheless, informed the jury that any admissions by Ralston could be considered as true substantive evidence. Ralston objected to M.W.’s testimony regarding the Indian women’s statements as unreliable. -11- During his examination, Ball stated that Ralston, while incarcerated with him, admitted that he left India because the housekeeper and her daughter alleged that he raped and molested them. 3. Digital Forensic Evidence In May 2009, Ralston was involved in a separate investigation, involving the criminal misuse of his computer. The Lyon County, Kansas Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) initiated the investigation, executed a search warrant at the residence where Ralston was living, and seized two Apple laptops and an iPhone. The Sheriff’s Office submitted the seized items to the Heart of America Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory, where FBI Special Agent Kevin Hall conducted a forensic examination. It was determined that the Apple MacBook Pro laptop belonged to Ralston. Agent Hall reviewed the computer’s internet browser history and drafted a corresponding report. The history consisted of multiple terms and searches, bookmarked websites, and file path names. Agent Hall also discovered software programs for Limewire peer-to-peer sharing and Keylogger. Later, Agent Thomas also reviewed the data discovered by Agent Hall. Agent Thomas testified that some of the discovered file path names or downloads were consistent with child pornography searches. But neither Agent Hall nor Agent Thomas recovered any actual videos or images of child pornography. D. Thomas Johnson’s Right Against Self-Incrimination Ralston planned to call Cody Davidson and Thomas Johnson during his case-in-chief to counter Ball’s testimony. Both Davidson and Johnson were Ralston’s podmates in the St. Clair County, Missouri Jail while this case was pending disposition. Davidson testified that he never heard Ralston admit to the offenses in -12- the instant case; however, Johnson invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to testify. At the time of Ralston’s federal trial, Johnson had entered a conditional plea in his own federal case. While awaiting federal sentencing, Johnson expressed that he did not want his credibility attacked on the witness stand in Ralston’s case. Johnson was also concerned that his testimony would interfere with his ability to appeal a potential suppression issue in his case. Johnson further stated similar concerns with respect to his pending state cases in Kansas and Missouri. The district court acknowledged its skepticism of Johnson’s invocation, but after speaking with the parties’ and Johnson’s attorneys and questioning Johnson under oath, it ruled that Johnson did not have to testify. E. Closing Arguments and Verdict After Ralston’s defense rested, the government and Ralston made their closing arguments. Relevant to this appeal, the government made the following statements during its closing: Members of the jury, it boggles the mind. What kind of man sexually assaults a five-year-old girl that he goes to church with, is in a Sunday school class? What kind of man sexually assaults an 18-year-old girl who looked to him as a father figure? What kind of man sexually assaults his wife’s sister, sexually assaults his housekeeper and her child in India, who downloads child pornography and then attempts to cover it up by the use of religion and submission against his wife? Jury trials often tell us about the measure of a man. For the last week we’ve heard the kind of man that would do these things, and that man is the defendant, Craig Ralston. .... -13- [Ralston] told Ricky Ball, remember, Oh, she likes it rough. She says no but that means yes. And I pray to God that we have grown enough as a society to recognize . . . when a woman says no, she means, No, I do not wish for you to have sex with me, I do not wish for you to rape me. Trial Tr., Vol. 4, at 713, 725, United States v. Ralston, No. 6:15-cr-03103-MDH-1 (W.D. Mo. June 15, 2018), ECF No. 146. Ralston did not object to these statements. The jury returned a verdict, finding Ralston guilty of both counts. The district court sentenced Ralston to 360 months’ imprisonment on Count 1 to run concurrently with a 120-month sentence on Count 2 and to a lifetime of supervised release.