Opinion ID: 159941
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony Regarding Screen Name

Text: 29 Mr. Campos further contends that the district court erred in allowing David Rehman (the law enforcement agent with experience in investigating child pornography via computer) to testify about Mr. Campos's choice of screen names. We discern no error in the district court's admission of this evidence. 30 Prior to trial, the government filed a notice of intent to present evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), including evidence that the term 'Chickenhawk' is a term denoting pedophiles and collectors of child pornography. Aplt's App. at 47. In response, Mr. Campos stated that he did not object to this evidence insofar as the Government wishes to offer so-called 'expert' opinions that conclude that such a screen name would gather child pornography. Id. at 54. However, Mr. Campos did object to evidence characterizing him as a pedophile. 31 At trial, the government introduced evidence that one of the screen names registered to Mr. Campos's AOL account was ChknHawk15. See id. at 321. Additionally, after the government called Mr. Rehman as a witness, the court heard testimony outside the presence of the jury regarding his qualifications and the information he would offer about the meaning of screen names. Mr. Campos objected on the grounds that Mr. Rehman was not qualified as an expert witness. See id. at 260, 268 (stating that Mr. Rehman's testimony is not science and that there is no recognized field of expertise in this so-called sexual exploitation of children). The court ruled that Mr. Rehman would be permitted to respond to questions regarding the meaning of the words. Id. at 268. However, the court sustained Mr. Campos's objection as to the ultimate conclusion. Id. at 269. 32 Mr. Rehman then testified before the jury as follows: 33 Q. What sort of a name is Chicken Hawk? 34 A: It's actually a combination of two words or two slang phrases. In the parlance of those people who are involved in the sexual exploitation of children, chicken generally refers to a young boy typically probably under the age of 12. A hawk would be someone who goes after a chicken, so a chicken hawk would be someone who is interested in young boys. 35 Id. at 272. 36 Mr. Campos now contends that by allowing Mr. Rehman to refer to the sexual exploitation of children the government was able to improperly suggest that persons using the screen name Chicken Hawk were involved in actually exploiting children rather than merely collecting child pornography. See Aplt's Br. at 19. Mr. Campos thus characterizes Mr. Rehman's testimony as improper under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) , which 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. 37 Before assessing the specific argument advanced by Mr. Campos, it is important to note that we do not here consider a related but more general issue: whether Mr. Rehman's statement that the name Chickenhawk refers to persons interested in child pornography is impermissible character evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). In neither the trial proceedings nor in this appellate brief has Mr. Campos challenged this aspect of Mr. Rehman's testimony on this basis. 2 38 As to the specific challenge that Mr. Campos does raise, we do not agree that Mr. Rehman's testimony may be fairly read as stating that those persons using the screen name Chicken Hawk are necessarily pursuing or actually engaged in sexual activity with children. It is true that the term sexual exploitation is used in some contexts to refer to such actual sexual activity. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 2251(a). However, the ordinary meaning of the term exploit is broad enough such that the phrase sexual exploitation may refer to the distribution of pornographic images of children. See 5 Oxford English Dictionary 574 (2d ed.1989) (defining exploit as to utilize for one's own ends, treat selfishly as mere workable material). Similarly, the other phrase used by Mr. Rehman-- interested in young boys--is broad enough to refer to one who is attracted to pornographic pictures of them. 3 39 Accordingly, Mr. Rehman's testimony does not impermissibly refer to prior bad acts in the manner deemed objectionable by Mr. Campos. The district court did not err in admitting it.