United States v. Davis
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23112
2d Cir.2010Background
- Davis was convicted by a jury on counts including sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and possession of child pornography, with additional counts for firearms and distribution-related offenses.
- Evidence included a safe in Davis's estranged wife's home containing child-pornography material and ammunition, which the government obtained from a purported abandonment.
- The district court denied Davis's suppression motion, finding the safe abandoned and its contents admissible.
- The government sought admission of Davis's prior convictions, including a 1991 sodomy conviction involving a child, under Rule 414, while excluding some 2007 offenses as potentially prejudicial.
- Davis challenged the admission of the 1991 conviction and contested the admissibility balance under Rule 414 and Rule 403, arguing unfair prejudice.
- During deliberations, the jury asked whether the knowledge requirement in § 2251(a) must be contemporaneous with production, prompting the district court’s guidance on temporal knowledge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporal knowledge under § 2251(a). | Davis argues knowledge must exist at the time of production. | Davis argues knowledge could be acquired later; the government argues otherwise. | Knowledge need not be contemporaneous with production. |
| Admission of the 1991 sodomy conviction under Rule 414. | Admission violates Rule 403 due to prejudice. | Rule 414 permits propensity evidence and prejudice is manageable. | Admission upheld under Rule 414 after balancing prejudice and relevance. |
| Motion to suppress the abandoned safe evidence. | The safe contained evidence seized without a warrant and should be suppressed. | Davis abandoned the safe, negating reasonable privacy expectations. | Suppression denied; abandonment supported admission. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Larson, 540 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2008) (discusses balancing rules and prejudicial risk under Rule 414)
- Kozeny, 541 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2008) (whole act rule of statutory construction relevant to interpretation of § 2251(a))
- Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1969) (legislative history weight in statutory interpretation)
- Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1998) (rule of lenity threshold for ambiguous statutes)
- United States v. Batton, 602 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2010) (illustrates balancing considerations for Rule 414 evidence)