ILNews

7th Circuit cautions bare-bones recitation of Rule 403 insufficient

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A District Court’s failure to review evidence and provide a considered analysis for admitting that evidence drew an admonishment – but no reversal - from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 7th Circuit affirmed Christopher Eads’s conviction and 40-year sentence for distributing child pornography, possessing child pornography and tampering with a witness in United States of America v. Christopher Eads, 12-2466.

Prior to his trial, Eads, representing himself, agreed to stipulate that the images and videos found in his possession depicted unlawful child pornography.

When the government prepared to show those images to the jury, however, Eads objected. He argued that the government had no need to present the photos and short video because of the stipulation. Eads stated that showing the images would be unreasonably prejudicial, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, overruled.

On appeal, Eads asserted the district court erred because it did not examine the pictures and videos itself before admitting them into evidence. He also argued that the District Court should have given a more robust explanation of how it balanced the factors under Rule 403 in deciding to admit the images.

The 7th Circuit noted there is some uncertainty as to whether the lower court did review the actual photos and videos. Still, it reiterated its past advice that the “safest course,” especially given the highly inflammatory nature of this type of evidence, is for the District Court to review the contested evidence itself to determine if the potential prejudicial impact is too great.

In regards to Rule 403, the 7th Circuit agreed with Eads.

The district court responded to Eads objections during trial, saying the photos were relevant to the government proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This caused the 7th Circuit to caution the lower court against a “pro-forma recitation of the Rule 403.” Instead, the District Court should have carefully analyzed the prejudicial effect of the evidence and offered a detailed explanation of how it balanced the factors under Rule 403.

Still, the 7th Circuit found the admission of the images was a harmless error. The evidence against Eads was overwhelming and showing the pictures to the jury did not change the outcome of the trial.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have dealt with more than a few I-465 moat-protected government attorneys and even judges who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the core of this 800 year old document. I guess monarchial privileges and powers corrupt still ..... from an academic website on this fantastic "treaty" between the King and the people ... "Enduring Principles of Liberty Magna Carta was written by a group of 13th-century barons to protect their rights and property against a tyrannical king. There are two principles expressed in Magna Carta that resonate to this day: "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." "To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice." Inspiration for Americans During the American Revolution, Magna Carta served to inspire and justify action in liberty’s defense. The colonists believed they were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen, rights guaranteed in Magna Carta. They embedded those rights into the laws of their states and later into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ("no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") is a direct descendent of Magna Carta's guarantee of proceedings according to the "law of the land." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/

  2. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  3. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  4. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  5. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

ADVERTISEMENT