Defendant was entitled to new trial on two of three convictions on charges of viewing and transporting child pornography, where Dist. Ct. improperly allowed govt. to rebut testimony of one of defendant's witnesses regarding where defendant had resided at time of commission of said offenses with statement defendant gave to Pretrial Services, where govt. used statement as "impeachment by contradiction." Said statement, which was otherwise confidential, was relevant only if offered for truth of matter asserted, which was prohibited under 18 USC section 3153(c)(1) and (3). Moreover, error was not harmless because there was substantial risk that jury considered evidence of defendant's statement as evidence of his guilt. Also, if govt. chooses not to re-try defendant on said charges, defendant is entitled to new sentencing hearing on third charge (which did not require evidence of defendant's residence) because sentencing guideline range for said charge would be lower without existence of vacated convictions.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Evidence