United States v. Blanchard
867 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2017Background
- Fritz Blanchard was convicted after a jury trial for aiding and abetting interstate transportation of three women for purposes of prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421 and 2422 and sentenced to 46 months.
- In March 2013 Blanchard traveled with Samuel Gravely (cooperator) and others to Bangor and Portland, Maine, where Gravely and Philbrook posted ads on Backpage; Blanchard helped take pictures, post ads, and coached escorts.
- In Portland they met a minor (M.J.) and Kaylee Howland; ads for M.J. and Philbrook were posted; the group then traveled to Boston where police intervened after Howland sought help.
- The government introduced two Backpage printouts (Exhibits 1 and 2) that bore dates/locations inconsistent with some witness testimony about when/where the ads were created.
- Blanchard testified and denied involvement; on cross-examination the government elicited testimony about later similar postings and conduct to rebut his claim of innocent presence.
- On appeal Blanchard challenged (1) authentication of the Backpage exhibits, (2) admission of evidence of other similar bad acts via cross-examination, and (3) in a pro se brief, sufficiency of intent, jury instructions, and denial of mistrial. The First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Blanchard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of Backpage ads | Exhibits are Backpage ads and admissible; any date/location discrepancies go to weight, not admissibility | Ads were not properly authenticated; discrepancies required Backpage testimony or expert to explain | Court affirmed admission: cumulative testimony (witnesses, police, HSI) supplied sufficient foundation; no abuse of discretion |
| Need for expert/third-party custodian testimony | Not required where percipient witnesses and other evidence identify and corroborate ads | Government should have produced Backpage records/person to explain discrepancies | Court held no categorical requirement for such testimony given corroborating record evidence |
| Admission of evidence of other similar acts on cross | Rebuttal of defendant’s testimony of innocent presence justified inquiry into later/post events | Such questioning introduced impermissible propensity evidence under Rule 404(b) | Court held evidence admissible to rebut defense of innocent involvement and not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 |
| Sufficiency of intent, jury instruction, mistrial (pro se claims) | Government: evidence (travel, posting, coaching) shows intent; instructions properly required intent at time of transport; mistrial unnecessary | Blanchard: insufficient proof of intent; instruction deficient; mistrial warranted for alleged extrinsic prior-bad-act evidence | Court held evidence sufficient for intent; jury instructions adequate; mistrial not required because any ambiguity could be cured and defendant declined curative instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmquist v. United States, 36 F.3d 154 (1st Cir.) (documentary evidence must be authentic)
- Paulino v. United States, 13 F.3d 20 (1st Cir.) (authentication may rest on percipient or custodian testimony or distinctive characteristics)
- Espinal-Almeida v. United States, 699 F.3d 588 (1st Cir.) (later testimony can cure premature admission of evidence)
- Savarese v. United States, 686 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing unpreserved evidentiary rulings and assessing sufficiency in light most favorable to verdict)
- Landry v. United States, 631 F.3d 597 (1st Cir.) (two-part test for Rule 404(b): special relevance and Rule 403 balancing)
- Ladd v. United States, 885 F.2d 954 (1st Cir.) (chain-of-custody concerns for non-readily-identifiable items)
- Rodríguez v. United States, 215 F.3d 110 (1st Cir.) (404(b) evidence admissible to rebut claim of innocent involvement)
- Lugo Guerrero v. United States, 524 F.3d 5 (1st Cir.) (prior similar acts can show non-innocent presence)
- Tavares v. United States, 705 F.3d 4 (1st Cir.) (intent element for transportation-for-prostitution requires that sexual activity be one of the defendant’s motives)
- De Jesús Mateo v. United States, 373 F.3d 70 (1st Cir.) (mistrial is a last resort; curative instruction may suffice)