United States v. Hite

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 13, 2013
DocketCriminal No. 2012-0065
StatusPublished

This text of United States v. Hite (United States v. Hite) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Hite, (D.D.C. 2013).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Criminal No. 12-65 (CKK) PAUL DAVID HITE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (January 13, 2013)

Defendant Paul David Hite is charged by Superseding Indictment with two counts of

attempted coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The

Government alleges that the Defendant engaged in a series of online chats and telephone

conversations with an undercover police detective posing as an adult and arranged to engage in

illicit sexual activity with a fictitious three year-old boy and twelve year-old girl. Presently

before the Court is the Government’s [26] Motion in Limine to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Government seeks to admit a variety of evidence

recovered from a laptop seized from the Defendant’s residence comprised primarily of (1)

evidence of the Defendant allegedly accessing child pornography; and (2) evidence of the

Defendant’s online chats and email exchanges with other adults discussing illicit sexual activity

with minors. Upon consideration of the pleadings,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record

as a whole—including an in camera review of the proposed photographic evidence—the Court

finds that certain redacted evidence proffered by the Government meets the standard for

1 Gov’t Mot., ECF No. [26]; Def.’s Opp’n, ECF No. [30]; Gov’t Reply, ECF No. [32]. The Defendant’s [34] Motion for Leave to File a Surreply is GRANTED. The Court considered the Defendant’s Surreply in resolving the Government’s motion. admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Court will require the Government to

redact certain portions of various proposed exhibits to exclude irrelevant and/or unduly

prejudicial evidence that substantially outweighs its probative value. The probative value of the

redacted evidence which the Court finds admissible is not substantially outweighed by the

danger of undue prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Accordingly, the Government’s

Motion in Limine to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) is

GRANTED IN PART as set forth below.

The Court shall provide the Defendant an opportunity to review and object to the

proposed images and redacted chats with other individuals that the Government seeks to have

admitted, but that the Defendant has not had an opportunity to review in their current form prior

to filing his opposition to the Government’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court set forth the factual history leading to the Defendant’s arrest at length in prior

opinions, and those discussions are incorporated by reference herein. 6/30/12 Mem. Opin. at 1-

13; 10/9/12 Mem. Opin. at 2-4. The Court will reference certain aspects of the Defendant’s

discussions with the undercover detective known to the Defendant as “JP,” as necessary, and

assumes the parties are familiar with the conversations.2

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other

acts is not admissible to prove a person’s character in or to show that on a particular occasion the

person acted in accordance with the character,” but “may be admissible for another purpose,”

2 The chats between the Defendant and “JP” are reproduced in their entirety in Docket Number [11-1].

2 including proving “motive, opportunity, intent, . . . [or] absence of mistake.” Fed. R. Evid.

404(b)(1), (2). The rule is one of “inclusion rather than exclusion. Although the first sentence of

Rule 404(b) is framed restrictively, the rule itself is quite permissive, prohibiting the admission

of other crimes evidence in but one circumstance—for the purpose of proving that a person's

actions conformed to his character.” United States v. Bowie, 232 F.3d 923, 929-30 (D.C. Cir.

2000) (internal quotations omitted).

In addressing trial court determinations on the admissibility of bad acts evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, this circuit has employed a two-step mode of analysis. Under the first step, which addresses Rule 404(b), “[the court] must determine whether the evidence is relevant to a material issue other than character. If so, [the court] proceeds to the second inquiry,” under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, “whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by the prejudice.”

United States v. Burch, 156 F.3d 1315, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Mitchell,

49 F.3d 769, 775 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

III. DISCUSSION

The Government seeks to introduce five categories of evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b):

(1) Twenty-four images of child pornography in thumbnail view and larger views of five of the twenty-four images. The images are a sample of 421 image and video files found in a “thumbcache” database file on the Defendant’s laptop, Gov’t Mot. at 12, Gov’t Notice, ECF No. [49];

(2) A printout of forensic analysis of the Internet Explorer web browsing history and recently accessed files indicating that on certain dates at certain times, the laptop user accessed image and media files with names “consistent with child pornography,” see Gov’t Reply Ex. B (browser history); Gov’t Reply Ex. C (recently accessed files);

(3) Yahoo Instant Messenger chats between the Defendant and four separate individuals (Yahoo User1, Yahoo User2, Yahoo User3, and Yahoo User4) on various dates since June 2011, see Gov’t Reply Ex. D;

(4) Emails obtained from the Defendant’s Yahoo email address indicating the Defendant established a Skype account, see Gov’t Reply Ex. E; and

3 (5) Three emails exchanged by the Defendant and another individual (Yahoo User5), including three images attached to the emails showing an adult male and a two- to three-year old boy.

Gov’t Mot. at 11-17. During discovery, the Government provided the Defendant all of the

evidence at issue and provided defense counsel the opportunity to review the photographic

evidence. The Government initially offered only a description of the precise evidence it sought

to have admitted, but did not provide the proposed non-photographic evidence until its Reply

brief. The Defendant filed a Surreply addressing the thumbcache evidence, but did not include

any objections to the other proposed exhibits.

The Government contends that this evidence is “highly relevant to prove the defendant’s

intent, knowledge, plan, and absence of mistake in committing the charged offense.” Id. at 18.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Thurber
377 F. App'x 658 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Robert William Godwin
399 F. App'x 484 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Burch, Larry D.
156 F.3d 1315 (D.C. Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Bowie, Juan
232 F.3d 923 (D.C. Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Long, Kenneth
328 F.3d 655 (D.C. Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Douglas
626 F.3d 161 (Second Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Bryan Burwell
642 F.3d 1062 (D.C. Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Chambers
642 F.3d 588 (Seventh Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Knope
655 F.3d 647 (Seventh Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Milford Burkley, (Two Cases)
591 F.2d 903 (D.C. Circuit, 1979)
United States v. Cooke
675 F.3d 1153 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Zahursky
580 F.3d 515 (Seventh Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Lewis
318 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Hite, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hite-dcd-2013.