United States v. Reed, 641 F.3d 992

Reed was convicted by a jury of three counts of receipt and distribution and one count of knowing possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), 2252A(a)(5)(B), 2256(8).
The government initially charged nine counts, then filed a superseding indictment on February 15-18, 2007 limiting charges to three counts and adding a possession count.
A warrant search of Reed’s SD State University residence on September 19, 2007 yielded a laptop, USB drive, and three hard drives with thousands of chat transcripts and images.
Testimony at trial included Reed’s roommate Aragon’s account and forensic evidence linking certain chats and images to Reed’s computer.
The district court granted a pretrial motion in limine barring references to the initial charging decisions and limited evidence, and sustained an objection to part of Reed’s testimony to align with that ruling.
Reed contends the district court abused its discretion (Brady-related concerns and trial rulings) and the appellate court affirms the judgment mainly on evidentiary discretion grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the in limine ruling excluding references to initial charges was an abuse of discretion.	Reed argues it suppressed exculpatory evidence and misrepresented charging decisions.	Reed contends the court should allow alibi evidence tied to dropped counts to defend against charges.	No abuse; running exclusion aligned with policy against misleading the jury.
Whether the trial court improperly limited Reed’s alibi evidence by constraining testimony to dates in the superseding indictment.	Reed claims the limit prevented full alibi defense relating to other dates (April 2006–Sept 2007).	The court’s scope adhered to the pretrial ruling and did not bar all relevant alibi evidence.	Not improper; ruling preserved and trial evidence remained consistent with allowed scope.

United States v. Noske, 117 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir. 1997) (minimum probative value outweighed by risk of unfair prejudice)
United States v. Kain, 589 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2009) (orphan files as evidence of prior possession)
Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. v. United States, 168 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 1999) (charging decisions evidence restrictions may prevent misleading the jury)
United States v. Candelaria-Silva, 166 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 1999) (factors in admission of evidence related to charging decisions)
Delgado v. United States, 903 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1990) (avoidance of prejudice when excluding prior charging decisions)