United States v. Michael Heinrich, 971 F.3d 160

Michael Heinrich was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) (production) and § 2252(a)(4)(B) (possession) after police found sexually explicit images/videos of two children on his devices; he admitted taking the photos but contested the requisite intent for production.
Heinrich proffered psychologist Robert Schwartz to testify that, based on testing and interviews, Heinrich lacked sexual interest in minors and did not intend to create child pornography.
The government moved to exclude the expert under Rules 401, 403, 702, and 704(b). The District Court held a hearing but never issued a written ruling.
A District Court law clerk conducted an unrecorded telephone conference advising counsel that the court intended to exclude the expert evidence under Rules 403 and 704(b); no judge participated and no order/opinion was docketed.
Relying on the apparent exclusion, Heinrich entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the evidentiary exclusion. On appeal, Heinrich challenged the exclusion and the adequacy of the district-court record and process.
The Third Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for the District Court to issue an explicit, documented ruling (with a detailed memorandum) on the government’s motion to exclude the proffered expert evidence.

Issue	Heinrich's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony to negate mens rea for § 2251(a)	Expert evidence shows Heinrich lacked intent to produce child pornography and is therefore admissible to contest mens rea	The production offense is a general-intent crime or expert testimony is inadmissible under Rules 401/702/704(b)	Court did not decide merits; remanded for district court to rule explicitly on admissibility
Proper application of Rule 403 balancing	Exclusion was improper without on-the-record balancing of probative value vs prejudice	Exclusion appropriate under Rules 403/704(b) (as conveyed in clerk call)	Appellate court requires explicit on-record Rule 403 analysis; remand because record lacks such analysis
Use of Rule 704(b) to limit expert testimony on ultimate issue (defendant's mental state)	Expert may opine on intent as it relates to psychological testing and impressions	Expert testimony impermissibly states ultimate issue under Rule 704(b)	District Court failed to issue a ruling on 704(b); remand for explicit findings and conclusions
Delegation and record adequacy (law clerk conference)	Defendant entitled to a formal judge-signed ruling and an articulated record before pleading	Government relied on apparent exclusion communicated by clerk	Court held a law clerk cannot substitute for a judge’s ruling; absence of formal, recorded decision prevents meaningful appellate review—remand required

United States v. Greenspan, 923 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2019) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (ruling is an abuse of discretion if based on erroneous view of law)
Issa v. Sch. Dist. of Lancaster, 847 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2017) (abuse of discretion where decision rests on clearly erroneous factual finding or improper law-to-fact application)
United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553 (3d Cir. 1991) (prefers on-the-record Rule 403 balancing)
Long v. United States, 574 F.2d 761 (3d Cir. 1978) (trial judge best positioned to assess prejudice; record should reflect balancing)
United States v. Sampson, 980 F.2d 883 (3d Cir. 1992) (appellate deference where trial court articulates Rule 403 reasoning)
Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Pinney, 967 F.2d 912 (3d Cir. 1992) (appellate court cannot defer when trial court’s rationale is absent)
United States v. Caldwell, 760 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2014) (remand where district court’s Rule 403 analysis was mere token effort)
Connolly v. Nat’l Sch. Bus Serv., Inc., 177 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 1999) (law clerk assists judge but does not act as judge)
United States v. Vosburgh, 602 F.3d 512 (3d Cir. 2010) (deference to trial judge on Rule 403 balancing due to courtroom perspective)