Opinion ID: 2935898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admission of evidence related to

Text: APPELLANT’S STATE COURT CHARGES Bilus filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, see Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), 14 and asked the district court to prevent the misdemeanor offense of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Child (Minor). The Court finds that while this is an error, excluding this statement would not affect whether probable cause was properly found by the state court judge. Again, whether or not “unlawful contact” actually occurred is not relevant to whether defendant traveled for the purpose of engaging in such contact. Thus, even if the affidavit had correctly listed the crime as contributing to the delinquency of a minor (which does not contain the term “unlawful contact” in it), sufficient other facts in the affidavit support the claim that he traveled with the purpose of engaging in sexual contact with the child. Also, while the affidavit does not artfully cite to the various studies showing the links between child pornography and child molestation, Congress and the Courts have consistently found that such links exist, as noted above. The Court finds, therefore, that any misstatements relating to these studies were not such that probable cause would be lacking if they were correctly made. ECF No. 35, at 15-16 (record citations omitted, alteration supplied). 13 In response to the argument of Bilus’s attorney that the search warrant affidavit provided “no basis for the conclusion” that the computer located at the defendant’s residence was used to communicate with a minor because he “might have participated in the online chat admitted to by the victim at a coffee house or internet caf,” the district court held that “[c]ommon sense dictates that it is fairly probable that defendant set up a furtive meeting with an underage girl at 10:40 p.m. in the privacy of his home rather than a public place.” Id. at 16-17 (alteration supplied). 11 Case: 14-12269 Date Filed: 09/15/2015 Page: 12 of 50 prosecution “from referencing in any fashion, evidence or facts related to an uncharged allegation of traveling to meet a minor, allegedly occurring on August 15, 2010.” ECF No. 35, at 1. 15 That motion was denied by oral order during the pretrial conference. Bilus’s attorney then inquired whether there would be a limit on what “evidence of the issues out of High Springs that the government is going to be permitted to go into.” ECF No. 151, at 18. The district judge responded: Well, I don’t know, because as I understand it and what I’m ruling is that you have got to keep these things. They are connected and you have to tell one to explain the other and how much that takes. How much evidence, I don’t know. If you start doing it, if you object, I’ll rule. Id. During opening statements, the prosecutor described the events of August 15, 2010, including the traffic stop and discovery of Bilus in the car with the virtually naked twelve-year-old girl. The prosecutor also stated that Bilus acknowledged conversing with the victim online, and driving from Gainesville to 14 Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) addresses the subject of evidence of crimes, wrongs, or acts other than (or not part of) the crime(s) charged in the indictment for which the defendant is standing trial. The pertinent portions of the rule state that such evidence “is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character,” but add that such evidence “may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” 15 Bilus’s reference to the allegation being “uncharged” must refer to the fact that he was not charged with that offense in the federal indictment. Instead, that offense was the subject of a state court charge. See ECF No. 117, at 13. 12 Case: 14-12269 Date Filed: 09/15/2015 Page: 13 of 50 High Springs to meet her in person. 16 Then he described how Detective Madsen used the information gathered during the traffic stop to obtain a search warrant for Bilus’s residence. Detective Madsen testified about how he learned of the traffic stop from the High Springs Police Department and why he decided to obtain a search warrant. He stated that the process of obtaining a warrant in this case was “rapid” and “expedited,” because Bilus had been “booked in on a misdemeanor.” ECF No. 153, at 33. Bilus’s attorney moved for a mistrial based upon Madsen’s reference to Bilus’s arrest for a state misdemeanor, but the district court denied the motion. Bilus’s attorney asked the prosecutor if he intended “to go any further down that road,” and the prosecutor responded, “No.” Id. at 33-34. On cross-examination, Bilus’s attorney asked Madsen to identify his resume, and Madsen responded: “This is what I wrote up to comply with a state order. I don’t have to but it is something I filed for the state case at your request.” ECF No. 154, at 28 (emphasis supplied). Bilus’s attorney moved for a mistrial based upon Madsen’s reference to the state case, but the motion was denied. 16 The driving distance between Gainesville and High Springs, Florida, appears to be approximately 23 miles. See, e.g., http://www.mapquest.com/#a42a5503fd2cfefd29f43c6d (last visited Aug. 18, 2015). 13 Case: 14-12269 Date Filed: 09/15/2015 Page: 14 of 50 The district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for “clear abuse of discretion.” United States v. Dodds, 347 F.3d 893, 897 (11th Cir. 2003). As this Court observed in United States v. McLean, 138 F.3d 1398 (11th Cir. 1998), Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” However, [e]vidence of criminal activity other than the charged offense is not extrinsic under Rule 404(b) if it is (1) an uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, (2) necessary to complete the story of the crime, or (3) inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense. United States v. Ramsdale, 61 F.3d 825, 829 (11th Cir. 1995). “Evidence, not part of the crime charged but pertaining to the chain of events explaining the context, motive and set-up of the crime, is properly admitted if linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.” United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1499 (11th Cir. 1985). McLean, 138 F.3d at 1403 (alterations in original). Bilus argues that, because he did not challenge the lawfulness of the search of his residence at trial — as distinguished from the objections he lodged in pretrial motions — the government had no reason to mention the state charges or the facts leading to them. That argument is not persuasive. Evidence about the events 14 Case: 14-12269 Date Filed: 09/15/2015 Page: 15 of 50 of August 15, 2010, and the state charges growing out of those events, is inextricably intertwined with the federal charges of receiving and possessing child pornography. Bilus used the same computer to receive and view child pornography as he did to contact the twelve-year-old victim and arrange their meeting in High Springs. The computer recovered from Bilus’s residence was still on when it was seized, and it showed that Bilus was logged into the same online teen chat room that he had used to communicate with the twelve-year-old victim. Bilus had logged in to the chat room under the username “Robert,” and a photograph of him was depicted next to the username. ECF No. 153, at 40-43. That evidence demonstrated two important points that the government had to prove: i.e., that the computer seized by agents belonged to Bilus; and, that he had used it. In short, Bilus’s arrest on the night of August 15, 2010, on Northwest 225th Terrace in High Springs, Florida, is part of the story leading to the search of his Gainesville residence and the seizure of the laptop computer containing child pornography. The linkage between the state and federal offenses is clear, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the evidence was inextricably intertwined. Moreover, the district court did not err in failing to make more detailed findings about whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence was 15 Case: 14-12269 Date Filed: 09/15/2015 Page: 16 of 50 substantially outweighed by its probative value. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.17 Given the inextricable connections between the offenses, there is no reason to believe that Bilus suffered any undue prejudice, and the district court adequately articulated its findings. 18