United States v. Meisel, 875 F.3d 983

Detective downloaded child-pornography videos from an Ares peer-to-peer user with nickname matching files on the defendant’s computer; forensic exam linked the Ares profile "UNI1" and an external H: drive "Test" folder to those files.
Meisel lived with Linda Thomas; Thomas and others (J.H., S.H., and Meisel’s son W.R.) had varying access to the residence and computer; some external devices bearing others’ names were once connected to the laptop.
Forensics showed Ares configured to share/download only to the external “Test” folder, many recent views of child-pornography files via media players, and user activity tied to the "Unicorn" profile (Meisel admitted the profile/name).
Meisel sought to present evidence that J.H., S.H., or W.R. were alternative perpetrators; the district court allowed proof of others’ access but excluded arguing a particular third party was the actual perpetrator for lack of a sufficient nexus.
Jury convicted Meisel of possession and distribution; on appeal he argued (1) the district court violated his right to present a complete defense by excluding alternative-perpetrator proof and (2) abused discretion by refusing his proposed "identity" (theory-of-defense) instruction.

Issue	Meisel’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Exclusion of alternative-perpetrator evidence (nexus requirement)	District court’s exclusion prevented him from presenting a complete defense; proffered nexus (especially re: J.H.) sufficed to let jury consider third-party guilt.	Evidence was speculative/remote; Meisel failed to show a non-speculative nexus between any third party and the charged crimes. Court properly limited use of access evidence.	Abuse-of-discretion standard; even if exclusion of J.H. evidence erred, error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the defense theory was tried to the jury and forensic evidence of Meisel’s guilt was overwhelming.
Refusal to give requested identity/theory-of-defense instruction	Jury should have been instructed that identity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; requested instruction clarified defense that someone else placed/distributed the files.	Existing instructions adequately required proof that Meisel knowingly possessed/distributed; a separate identity instruction was unnecessary and duplicative.	No abuse of discretion: instructions as a whole adequately conveyed the defense and the government’s burden; refusal was permissible.

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (third-party guilt evidence may be excluded if speculative or lacking sufficient nexus)
United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 1998) (defendant must show non-speculative nexus linking alternative perpetrator to the crime)
United States v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (district court’s admission/ exclusion of alternative-perpetrator evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Bowling, 619 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2010) (review of refusal to give theory-of-defense instruction; assess instructions as a whole)
United States v. Glass, 128 F.3d 1398 (10th Cir. 1997) (standard for harmlessness of constitutional error in context of overwhelming evidence)
United States v. Russian, 848 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2017) (discusses harmless-error review)