United States v. Michael Roux
715 F.3d 1019
7th Cir.2013Background
- Roux was convicted of inducing a minor to create sexually explicit images under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
- He lived with Roberta H. and her four daughters (ages 7–14 when he moved in).
- EV, CC, and SH were victims of Roux’s abuse; EV reported ongoing abuse starting when she was 9–10 and continued through high school.
- Authorities recovered explicit images from Roux’s house after EV disclosed the abuse, including images of EV and a man’s penis with no male face visible.
- A grand jury charged Roux with producing visual depictions of the abuse via interstate commerce; a forfeiture count was later dismissed.
- The district court admitted Rule 404(b) evidence from EV’s sisters, CC and SH, to show motive and identity, and the jury was instructed on proper limited use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) evidence was properly admitted | Roux: testimony of CC/SH unfairly prejudicial | Government: probative of motive/identity, not propensities | Admissible; probative value did not substantially outweigh prejudice. |
| Whether mug shots of Roux were properly admitted | Mug shots were prejudicial and not necessary | Photographs helped link Roux to the charged photos | Admissible; not unduly prejudicial in context. |
| Whether jail-call references violated presumption of innocence | Prosecutor’s label ‘jail calls’ biased the jury | Single reference insufficient to prejudice; proper instructions given | No mistrial required; trial fair. |
| Whether cross-exam questions about corroborating evidence shifted burden | Questions implied defendant had to produce corroboration | Court instructed that defendant has no duty to present evidence | No burden-shifting; instructions preserved burden on government. |
| Whether cumulative errors deprived Roux of a fair trial | Multiple evidentiary/prosecutorial missteps | Errors, if any, were not sufficient to deny fair trial | No reversible cumulative error; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 698 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2012) (admissibility of prior acts evidence balancing and 403 analysis)
- United States v. Sebolt, 460 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2006) (prior acts may establish motive/identity for sex-offense cases)
- United States v. Russell, 662 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2011) (prior acts of sexual misconduct probative of motive; not too remote)
- United States v. Chambers, 642 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2011) (probative but prejudicial nature of molestation evidence considered)
- United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2007) (prosecutor’s comments on lack of defense evidence allowed if not burden-shifting)