United States v. Andrew Miller
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15523
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Miller was charged with distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography based on multiple counts under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(1), (2), (a)(4).
- During trial Miller testified he had no interest in child pornography, which the government argued opened the door to cross-examination about prior allegations by his granddaughter and stepdaughter.
- The district court allowed questioning about the granddaughter’s alleged inappropriate conduct and the stepdaughter’s claimed molestation-related conduct, but barred extrinsic proof and instructed the jury that evidence was limited to intent, knowledge, and lack of mistake.
- Evidence obtained during the search included over 100 child pornography videos and images across Miller’s desktop, laptop, and external drive; Miller admitted downloading such files and viewing some of them.
- Bonnie (Miller’s wife) informed investigators of the granddaughter’s allegations and the stepdaughter’s claims, and that Miller had deleted many files after being confronted.
- Miller was convicted on all counts; the district court did not explicitly perform Rule 403 balancing before admitting the questioned evidence, prompting his appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 403 balancing was required before admission | Miller: court erred by not weighing probative value against unfair prejudice. | Government: door opened; balancing unnecessary due to trial context. | District court erred by not explicitly performing Rule 403 balancing. |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Harms the defense by inflaming jury bias, prejudicing outcome. | Evidence was outweighed by overwhelming guilt evidence; error harmless. | Error was harmless given overwhelming untainted evidence of guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2011) (requires balancing; undue prejudice can override probative value)
- Mihailovich v. Laatsch, 359 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2004) (weigh probative value against risk of prejudice)
- United States v. Ciesiolka, 614 F.3d 347 (7th Cir. 2010) (explicit Rule 403 balancing required for Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Hawpetoss, 478 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2007) (anomalous risk of prejudice in molestation cases; probative value varies)
- United States v. Knope, 655 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2011) (past chats showing interest in minors undermines harmlessness defense)
- United States v. Chambers, 642 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2011) (voluminous prior acts evidence requires careful prejudice assessment)
- United States v. Rogers, 587 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009) (improper bias risks; limiting instructions impact prejudice)
- United States v. Jones, 455 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 2006) (limiting instruction reduces potential unfair prejudice)
- United States v. Carraway, 108 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 1997) (harmless-error standard in evidentiary rulings)