U.S. v. Loughry

In prosecution on advertising and distribution of child pornography charges, Dist. Ct. erred in admitting several uncharged videos depicting hard-core child pornography discovered in defendant's home. Propensity evidence admitted under Rule 414 is still subject to unfair prejudice analysis set forth in Rule 403, and Dist. Ct. erred in: (1) failing to actually view subject evidence prior to making ruling on its admissibility; and (2) failing to explain how it balanced Rule 403 factors when admitting instant evidence. Moreover, probative value of such evidence was outweighed by risk of unfair prejudice where: (1) defendant was not charged with possession of child pornography; and (2) subject-matter of instant videos was graphic and inflammatory and otherwise was much worse in nature than child pornography at issue in charged offense.