United States v. Mack, 298 F.R.D. 349

Defendant Jeremy Mack and co-defendant were indicted for a sex/drug trafficking conspiracy involving Victims #1–#4, with Victim #2 a minor.
The superseding indictment alleges coercive means—force, threats, fraud, or coercion—to compel commercial sex acts by Victims #1–#4.
Government theory includes supplying drugs to control victims and using coercion to repay drug debts.
Government concedes some alleged prostitutes may have acted voluntarily; focus is on Victims #1–#4.
Indictment charges conspiracy, sex trafficking of children and women, drug distribution, and witness tampering; co-defendant Onysko is cooperating and testifying.
Court proceedings included a motion in limine to exclude reverse 404(b) evidence and related arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of reverse 404(b) evidence	Mack should present voluntary-prostitution evidence to negate coercion.	Reverse 404(b) evidence is admissible to negate the government’s coercion theory.	Exclusion upheld; reverse 404(b) evidence barred under 404(b) and 403 as to Victims #1–#4.
Applicable standard for in limine rulings	Court should permit relevant defense evidence to ensure a complete defense.	Defense evidence is essential to rebut coercion claims.	Rulings are preliminary but within court’s discretion; evidence limited to Victims #1–#4 unless government broadens theory.
Impact of 404/Reverse 404(b) on jury confusion	Voluntary acts of other women negate coercion for charged victims.	Non-charged acts relevant to intent; not always- or ceaseless-conduct	Even if admissible under 404(b), excluded under Rule 403 for prejudice and confusion.

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (inherent authority to manage trials; in limine use)
United States v. Brawner, 173 F.3d 966 (6th Cir. 1999) (authority to decide in limine matters; admissibility governs later rulings)
Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 1997) (standard for limiting in limine evidence)
Indiana Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (exclude evidence not clearly admissible; defer if unclear)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (defense rights balanced against admissibility rules)
United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2008) (reverse 404(b) evidence; relevance to intent)
United States v. Damti, 109 Fed.Appx. 454 (2d Cir. 2004) (example of 404(b) rationale in conspiracy cases)
United States v. Daulton, 266 Fed.Appx. 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (limitation of reverse 404(b) evidence; not always probative)
United States v. Bell, 516 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2008) (403 balancing in 404(b) context)
Lattner v. United States, 385 F.3d 947 (6th Cir. 2004) (Rule 403 prejudice vs. probative value of other acts)