Opinion ID: 4544356
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial and Cross-Examination of Morgan

Text: At trial, the government presented evidence of the facts recounted above, including (1) testimony from Morgan, Emilee, Allmond’s former supervisor, a 7 Although Allmond also argued in the district court that § 2422(b) was facially unconstitutional, on appeal he argues only that it is unconstitutional as applied. Accordingly, his facial challenge is abandoned. See United States v. Grimon, 923 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 536 (2019) (explaining that issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned). 7 Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 8 of 19 computer forensics expert, Allmond’s former sex crimes instructor, and the officer who investigated this case, and (2) birth certificates, driver’s licenses, Tinder account records, Snapchat account records, photographs of Allmond’s apartment and handcuffs, and Allmond’s recorded interview, among other things. During cross-examination of Morgan, defense counsel asked whether she was scared about going to Allmond’s apartment the first time. Morgan responded, “I was a little scared because I didn’t know what I was doing. I [had] never done anything like that before.” At a sidebar conference, defense counsel requested that the district court allow him to impeach Morgan with the evidence that she had engaged in sexual conduct with other men like Allmond before. The government opposed the request, arguing that Morgan was referring to never meeting a man in the middle of the night. The district court denied the defense’s request because Morgan’s statement was ambiguous and the defense’s further questioning her about what she meant would be purposefully asking her to open the door to inadmissible evidence.8 8 The following exchange occurred in the sidebar conference: [Defense counsel]: The fact that she’s never done this before, I’m going to ask [t]he Court to allow me to go into the fact that she has done this before. [Government counsel]: In all due respect, I believe she’s referring to meeting [Allmond] in the middle of the night. [Defense counsel]: You don’t know what she meant. 8 Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 9 of 19 D. Motions for Judgment of Acquittal, Conviction, and Sentence At the close of the government’s evidence, the defense rested. Allmond moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that Morgan was never persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to do anything by anyone other than Emilee. The district court denied the motion. The jury found Allmond guilty of the § 2422(b) charge. Allmond again moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing, inter alia, that Morgan had testified that Allmond had not persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced her to do anything. The district court denied the motion. The district court sentenced Allmond to 121 months’ imprisonment.9