United States v. Christopher Thomas Condon, 720 F.3d 748

Christopher Condon, charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243(a) and 1153 for sexual abuse of a 14-year-old, moved in limine to exclude a recorded jail phone call with his mother in which he said he was "guilty" but referenced a lawyer saying there might be a "technicality/loophole."
The defense conceded Condon had sexual intercourse with the victim but intended to assert the § 2243(c)(1) affirmative defense that he reasonably believed the victim was at least 16.
The jail records policy warned inmates calls are recorded; Condon called his mother from the facility.
The government argued the tape contained a direct admission relevant to an element of the offense and/or to rebut the mistaken-age defense and that jurors should resolve ambiguities.
The district court repeatedly reviewed the tape and excluded it under Fed. R. Evid. 403, finding its probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, risk of confusing the affirmative-defense issue, and potential to mislead the jury.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying abuse-of-discretion review and concluding the district court reasonably balanced probative value against prejudice and confusion given multiple plausible interpretations of the recorded statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 403 of taped jail call	Tape is highly probative; contains admissions on an element and bears on the mistaken-age defense; jury should weigh ambiguity	Tape is ambiguous: statements admit only sexual contact, not waiver of affirmative defense; admission would unfairly prejudice and confuse jury	Affirmed exclusion — probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice/confusion/misleading the jury
Whether exclusion unfairly prevented government from proving its case	Exclusion handicaps proof because tape offers direct evidence of guilt	Govt had other evidence (stipulated DNA, ages, tribe, location); case turns on affirmative defense	No unfair prevention; government not deprived of means to prove elements
Whether references to attorney-client matters require protection	Govt: statements shared with mother so not privileged and thus not protected	Defense: tape shows attorney-advice context that could mislead jurors if included	Court did not rely on privilege ruling; referenced attorney-related context only to explain potential jury confusion
Standard of review for Rule 403 balancing	Govt: district court abused discretion by excluding relevant evidence	Defense: district court exercised permissible discretion after careful review	Abuse-of-discretion review; no clear abuse found — exclusion upheld

Honeywell v. White, 141 F.3d 1270 (8th Cir. 1998) (deference to district court Rule 403 exclusion)
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Beelman River Terminals, Inc., 254 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2001) (Rule 403 balancing and deference to trial court)
United States v. Muhlenbruch, 634 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2011) (unfair prejudice defined and limited: not mere proof of guilt)
United States v. Frederickson, 601 F.2d 1358 (8th Cir. 1979) (close Rule 403 questions regarding taped confessions)