United States v. Dana Curtin
23-3368
| 7th Cir. | Jul 21, 2025Background
- Dana Curtin was convicted of attempted sex trafficking of a minor after communicating for weeks with an undercover federal agent posing as the father of a 12-year-old girl.
- The communications involved arranging for Curtin to pay for sex with the fictitious minor, culminating in Curtin's arrival at the arranged meeting place with cash, condoms, and lubricant.
- Curtin claimed his intent was to expose a trafficking operation, not to engage in illegal conduct, though he never reported the interactions to authorities.
- The government introduced evidence of Curtin’s use of websites for adult sexual services but found no child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or evidence of sexual interest in minors on his phone.
- Curtin sought to introduce expert testimony from Dr. Fabien Saleh to rebut intent, particularly that Curtin did not have pedophilic disorder and that an interest in adult prostitution does not imply an interest in minors.
- The district court excluded much of Dr. Saleh’s testimony, finding it unhelpful to the jury, and Curtin was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 180 months.
Issues
| Issue | Curtin's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of pedophilic disorder testimony | Testimony on lack of pedophilic disorder was relevant to showing lack of intent for the offense | Such testimony is irrelevant and not permitted under caselaw; Curtin waived the issue by agreeing with the court | Waived; court did not err in exclusion |
| Exclusion of testimony distinguishing adult and child sex interest | Needed to show that interest in adult sex acts/pornography does not imply interest in minors | Jury does not need expert testimony to understand this commonsense distinction | No abuse of discretion; exclusion affirmed |
| Application of harmless error review | Exclusion was not harmless, as evidence was circumstantial on intent | Evidence of guilt and intent was strong even without disputed testimony | Any error was harmless, conviction stands |
| Procedural waiver | Curtin preserved the argument through prior filings/statements | Curtin’s counsel expressly agreed with the court's ruling and disclaimed intent to introduce pedophilia evidence | Curtin waived the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. 302 (abuse of discretion standard clarified)
- United States v. Burns, 843 F.3d 679 (preservation and waiver of appellate issues)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (waiver and forfeiture standards)
- United States v. Dewitt, 943 F.3d 1092 (expert testimony must add to common sense jury knowledge)
- Salem v. U.S. Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31 (scope of permissible expert testimony)
- United States v. Christian, 673 F.3d 702 (role of expert opinions on jury comprehension)
- United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 1337 (overlap of expert and jury's common sense)