Opinion ID: 147081
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Chat Log Portions

Text: We move to the admission of the chat log portions where Allen claimed to have molested minors. Even were it error, under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, for the district court to admit them, the error was harmless because the government presented plenty of other evidence cumulative of the proper purposes for which they otherwise may have been admittedto prove identity, knowledge, and intent. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); see also United States v. Sebolt, 460 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir.2006). To prove identity, for example, the government found a plethora of child pornography on Allen's desktop computer and elsewhere in his room, a log file on the desktop indicating it had been used to transport child pornography to Agent Jensen, explicit advertisements posted by Allen, other chat log portions where Allen discussed trading child pornography, and an abundance of information freely available online linking Allen's identity to the various nicknames he used when engaging in these chats. FBI agents testified to these items at trial and some were admitted into evidence physically. The government also presented other evidence to prove Allen's knowledge and intent. For example, in other chat log portions, Allen stated nah im just trading under age porn or yeah well I love all little boy porn. Appellant's Br. at 25. And as Allen admits, this evidence was equally capable of proving knowledge and intent. Id. Moreover, even were there a remaining harmful effect of admitting Allen's discussion of separate crimes, it was additionally limited when the judge gave an instruction specifically admonishing the jury to consider evidence of acts of the defendant other than those charged in the indictment ... only on the questions of the identity of the defendant as the individual who committed the charged acts; and, motive, intent, preparation, knowledge and absence of mistake or accident. Appellee's Br. at 25 (quoting Tr. at 469). For these reasons, we need not decide whether the danger of unfair prejudice or the needless presentation of cumulative evidence substantially outweighed the chat log portion's probative value. Even if they did, the prosecution's case would not have been significantly less persuasive had the improper evidence been excluded. United States v. Cooper, 591 F.3d 582, 590 (7th Cir.2010) (citations omitted).