United States v. Schaffer, 851 F.3d 166

In 2012 Schaffer (then 33) arranged by email to meet a 15-year-old (Sierra) for a job interview; he subsequently sexually assaulted her at his office.
Homeland Security agents executed a search warrant at Schaffer’s office; after a brief security sweep they interviewed him for about an hour, told him he was not under arrest, did not handcuff or draw weapons, and denied two requests by Schaffer to leave while the search continued. He made incriminating statements before being given Miranda warnings; agents arrested him only after calling the U.S. Attorney.
Forensic review of Schaffer’s computer uncovered four videos showing him sexually assaulting two other minor girls (approx. ages 8–9 and 12–13); the government sought to admit ~15 minutes of clips.
Pretrial motions: Schaffer moved to suppress his statements as obtained during a custodial interrogation (Miranda); he also moved to exclude the videos as unfairly prejudicial and argued Rule 413 (admitting prior sexual-offense evidence) violated Due Process.
The district court denied suppression (found interview noncustodial) and admitted limited portions of the videos under Rule 413 after a Rule 403 balancing. Jury convicted; Schaffer appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statements should be suppressed because interview was "custodial" under Miranda	Gov: Interview was noncustodial; no Miranda violation	Schaffer: Agents prevented him leaving, denied attorney/medication; thus custody required Miranda warnings	Interview was noncustodial; suppression denied (no Miranda violation)
Whether Rule 413 (admission of prior sexual-assault evidence) violates Due Process facially	Gov: Rule 413 constitutional; permits relevant propensity evidence subject to Rule 403	Schaffer: Rule 413 contravenes long-standing prohibition on propensity evidence and lacks empirical support; violates fundamental fairness	Rule 413 does not violate Due Process on its face; Rule 403 provides adequate safeguards
Whether district court abused discretion admitting the four videos under Rule 403/413	Gov: Videos highly probative of intent and pattern; limited in duration; jury instructed	Schaffer: Videos were overly inflammatory, prejudicial, and age differences reduced probative value	No abuse of discretion; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; admission affirmed
Whether district court’s factual findings about interview custody were clearly erroneous	Gov: Credible agent testimony showing voluntary interview and limited restrictions	Schaffer: Contested facts (denied leave, presence of many agents) imply custody	Findings credited; no clear error; legal custody conclusion affirmed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (defines custodial interrogation and Miranda warnings requirement)
Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948) (explains rationale for excluding propensity/evidence of bad character)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) (custody inquiry requires objective assessment of whether freedom of movement was curtailed comparable to formal arrest)
Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (discusses Due Process limits on admission of prior-bad-act evidence)
United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2004) (articulates factors for Miranda custody analysis)
United States v. Enjady, 134 F.3d 1427 (10th Cir. 1998) (upholding constitutionality of Rule 413 subject to Rule 403 balancing)
United States v. Faux, 828 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2016) (application of custody factors; noncustodial interview analysis)