United States v. Michael Willins, 992 F.3d 723

Background

Willins posted a Craigslist ad seeking a "really taboo female." An undercover officer posing as "Sammi" engaged him and they discussed involving Sammi’s minor daughter in sexual activity. Willins traveled to Arkansas and was arrested.
He was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) and travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)).
Willins proffered licensed social worker Art Chupik to testify that Willins is not sexually attracted to 12‑year‑old girls and to discuss fantasy role‑playing in chat rooms.
The district court excluded Chupik’s testimony: (1) as impermissibly addressing the defendant’s mental state for the § 2423(b) charge under Fed. R. Evid. 704(b); (2) as confusing/prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403 for the § 2422(b) charge; and (3) as irrelevant regarding fantasy in chat rooms because this case involved Craigslist, emails, and texts, not chat rooms.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding any evidentiary error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence (multiple explicit conversations, attempted calls to the daughter, and Willins’s bringing condoms, lubricant, an empty Cialis bottle, and a sex toy) and weaknesses in Chupik’s proffered methods.

Issues

Issue	Willins’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether excluding expert testimony that Willins is not attracted to minors violated Rule 704(b) as to the § 2423(b) charge	Chupik’s testimony would show Willins lacked the specific intent to travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct	Such testimony impermissibly opines on the defendant’s criminal intent and/or is a thinly veiled attempt to negate intent	Court avoided deciding Rule 704(b) violation; found any error harmless given overwhelming evidence and weak proffered testimony
Whether excluding the same testimony under Rule 403 as to the § 2422(b) charge was an abuse of discretion	Testimony was probative to show lack of intent to entice a minor	Admission would confuse the jury because of charge overlap and risk unfair prejudice	Exclusion was not reversible error; any error was harmless
Whether testimony about fantasy in chat rooms was admissible	Chupik would explain fantasy role‑playing and that defendant viewed communications as fantasy	Testimony was irrelevant (case involved Craigslist/emails/texts, not chat rooms) and potentially confusing	District court properly excluded it as irrelevant
Sufficiency of the evidence for attempted enticement under § 2422(b)	Evidence does not show Willins intended to entice a minor; he sought sex with the mother	Conversations with "Sammi" about sex with her daughter, attempted calls to the daughter, and items brought to Arkansas show intent and a substantial step	Conviction affirmed; a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Allen, 540 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Hicks, 457 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2006) (elements of § 2423(b) require intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct)
United States v. Gipson, 862 F.2d 714 (8th Cir. 1988) (experts may describe mental disease but not opine on specific criminal intent)
United States v. Kristiansen, 901 F.2d 1463 (8th Cir. 1990) (Rule 704(b) not meant to bar testimony describing qualities of a mental condition)
United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2019) (excluding expert testimony that defendant was not attracted to prepubescent girls)
United States v. Hite, 769 F.3d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (admitting expert testimony that defendant lacked diagnosis indicating attraction to minors)
United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008) (admitting expert evidence that defendant was unlikely to have sex with a minor)
United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing limits of expert testimony about fantasy framing of sexual communications)
United States v. Spurlock, 495 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2007) (using an adult intermediary can constitute attempted enticement)
United States v. Yarrington, 634 F.3d 440 (8th Cir. 2011) (harmless‑error analysis for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Wells, 706 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)