United States v. Enoch Smith
662 F. App'x 132
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2012 a grand jury indicted Enoch Smith on (1) production of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and (2) sex trafficking of a minor and attempt (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1594). He was convicted by a jury in 2013 and sentenced to 360 months.
- The Government moved pretrial under Fed. R. Evid. 412 to exclude evidence of the minor-victim TH’s unrelated sexual behavior; the defense did not oppose and the court granted the motion subject to reconsideration (which defense never sought).
- At trial the Government introduced two lascivious photographs of TH saved on Smith’s computer in a sexually titled folder alongside other images used for advertising sexual services.
- TH lived with Smith for an extended time, slept in his bed, and gave inconsistent ages when asked; testimony also showed TH returned to prostitution and used drugs after Smith’s arrest.
- Smith raised three grounds on appeal: (1) Rule 412 exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; (2) insufficiency of the evidence on both counts (intent/knowledge of age); and (3) prosecutorial misconduct in eliciting allegedly prejudicial testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion under Rule 412 and Confrontation Clause | Rule 412 exclusion was proper to protect minor-victim evidence; limits on cross were reasonable | Excluding evidence of TH’s unrelated sexual behavior and truncating cross-examination violated Sixth Amendment confrontation rights | Waived by defense agreement; alternatively no plain error—court allowed reasonable limits and exclusion was not arbitrary |
| Sufficiency of proof for § 2251(a) (Count I) — intent to produce visual depiction | Evidence (lascivious photos in sex-titled folder and context) supports inference defendant intended production of images | Argues insufficient proof of intent to produce and challenges knowledge of victim’s age | Evidence sufficient: contextual and circumstantial evidence allowed a rational jury to find intent; knowledge of age not required under § 2251(a) |
| Sufficiency of proof for § 1591/attempt (Count II) — knowledge/reckless disregard of age | Under § 1591(c) strict liability applies where defendant had reasonable opportunity to observe the victim; alternatively facts show recklessness (inconsistent ages, comments by Smith) | Argues Government failed to prove Smith knew or recklessly disregarded victim’s age | Evidence sufficient: § 1591(c) applies (reasonable opportunity to observe); alternatively jury could find recklessness |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — eliciting prejudicial/emotional testimony | Elicited testimony to neutralize anticipated defense impeachment and to show potential bias of witnesses; permissible litigation technique | Argues testimony about TH’s later drug use, prostitution, and agent’s rehab efforts prejudiced jury and bolstered witnesses improperly | No plain error; testimony was responsive to anticipated impeachment and bias arguments and did not infect trial with unfairness |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (procedural default/waiver vs. forfeiture framework) (explains waiver/forfeiture and plain-error review)
- United States v. John-Baptiste, 747 F.3d 186 (3d Cir.) (district courts have wide latitude to limit cross-examination)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Palomino-Coronado, 805 F.3d 127 (4th Cir.) (discusses proving intent to produce visual depictions by circumstantial evidence)
- X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (age knowledge not required for § 2251(a) convictions)
- United States v. Ortiz-Graulau, 526 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (contextual evidence can support intent to produce sexual images)
- United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22 (2d Cir.) (§ 1591(c) imposes strict liability re: knowledge of age when defendant had reasonable opportunity to observe victim)
- United States v. Morena, 547 F.3d 191 (3d Cir.) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct reaching constitutional magnitude)
- United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (proof of witness bias is generally relevant)
- United States v. Feldman, 788 F.2d 544 (9th Cir.) (eliciting evidence to blunt anticipated impeachment is proper litigation technique)