United States v. Harp, 1:23-cr-00069

Christopher Harp was indicted on three counts of receipt and one count of possession of child pornography, based on evidence found during a 2020 FBI search of his West Virginia home.
The government sought to admit evidence of Harp’s prior uncharged acts involving child pornography, discovered on his laptop and a USB drive, under Federal Rules of Evidence 414 and 404(b).
The laptop's restore points and files from a USB drive showed a pattern of downloading, saving, and deleting files related to child pornography from as early as 2009 up to 2018.
The defendant challenged the admissibility of this evidence, arguing it was prejudicial and not sufficiently tied to him or to knowing conduct.
The court held an evidentiary hearing with testimony from forensic examiners confirming that login data and document titles tied the digital evidence to Harp.
The government argued this evidence showed propensity, motive, identity, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake, directly rebutting Harp’s alibi and any claim of mistaken or accidental download.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Rule 414	Evidence shows propensity for child sex offenses; relevant to case	Evidence is unduly prejudicial; not sufficiently proven to be Harp's acts	Admissible under Rule 414
Admissibility under Rule 404(b)	Evidence shows motive, identity, knowledge, intent, absence of mistake	Evidence of prior bad acts not relevant or necessary; prejudicial	Admissible under Rule 404(b)
Prejudice vs. probative value (Rule 403)	High probative value not substantially outweighed by danger of prejudice	Prejudicial nature outweighs probative value	Evidence not excluded under 403
Sufficient proof of knowledge/identity	Login data, file names, and Harp-linked documents tie evidence to Harp	Insufficient direct proof that Harp acted knowingly	Jury could reasonably infer Harp’s knowledge

United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2007) (Rule 414 allows evidence of prior sexual offenses to show propensity).
United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997) (sets the admissibility standard for Rule 404(b) evidence: relevance, necessity, reliability, probative value).
United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460 (4th Cir. 1995) (Rule 404(b) is an inclusive rule, admitting all evidence of other crimes or acts except that proving only criminal disposition).
United States v. Huddleston, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (standard for admitting evidence of other acts: could a reasonable jury find the act occurred and the defendant was the actor).