United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965

Loughry was convicted on charges related to advertising, distributing, and conspiring to distribute child pornography via the Cache online repository.
The Cache included a rules-based system with a nude gallery; the government framed Loughry as an administrator with influence over postings and user management.
Evidence at trial included Loughry’s posts thanking others for images and his own claimed interest in prepubescent material, though no charged images were shown as posted by him.
Law enforcement later introduced highly graphic, uncharged 'hard core' child pornography found on Loughry’s home computer, which was not connected to the Cache postings.
The district court admitted the hard core material over Rule 403 objection, without reviewing the actual materials, and the jury was later exposed to the material during trial.
Loughry appealed, challenging the admission of the hard core material as reversible error under Rules 414 and 403, and asserting failure to explain Rule 403 balancing and to review the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred admitting hard core material under Rule 414/403	Loughry urges improper propensity evidence and prejudicial impact outweighing probative value.	Loughry contends Rule 403 balancing and Rule 414 safeguards were violated; evidence highly prejudicial with little probative value.	Abused discretion; benefits did not outweigh prejudice; not admissible.
Whether the court erred by not reviewing the contested videos before admission	Government description suffices for Rule 403 balancing.	Court must personally review contested material to assess prejudice and probative value.	Abused discretion; district court should have reviewed the materials.
Whether the court failed to articulate its Rule 403 reasoning	Bare bones balancing explanation is adequate.	More explicit articulation is required to permit appellate review.	Abused discretion; insufficient explanation for balancing.
Whether admission of hard core material was harmless error	Uncharged material was overwhelmed by strong evidence of guilt.	Inflammatory nature and lack of direct link to charged acts undermined fairness.	Not harmless; reversal warranted.

United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935 (9th Cir.2007) (must personally review contested evidence for Rule 403 balancing)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (provides guidance on balancing probative value against prejudice)
Rogers, 587 F.3d 816 (7th Cir.2009) (propensity evidence and Rule 414 considerations require careful balancing)
LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.2001) (emphasizes Rule 403 safeguards for propensity-based evidence)
Castillo, 140 F.3d 874 (10th Cir.1998) (Rule 403 applicability to Rule 414 evidence to avoid unfair prejudice)
Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.2005) (undue prejudice standard; vivid material increases risk)
Liefer, 778 F.2d 1236 (7th Cir.1985) (district court must carefully assess probative value vs unfair prejudice)