New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Internet Evidence — Chats May Be Admissible for Non-Hearsay Purposes of Showing State of Mind, Intent, Knowledge, Absence Mistake and Associating Owner with Material on His or Her Computer

Download PDF

United States v. DeFoggi, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93198 (D. Neb. June 9, 2014):

C. Motion in Limine

DeFoggi's Motion in Limine seeks to prevent the government from referencing the "fantasy chat private messages sent to and from" particular usernames from Website A, arguing the messages are irrelevant or overly prejudicial to him. See Filing No. 95. DeFoggi filed a brief (Filing No. 96) in support of the motion. DeFoggi argues the fantasy chats are not sufficiently relevant to the charges filed against him and should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401. See Filing No. 96 - Brief p. 2. Specifically, he argues the fantasy chats are merely fantasy conversations pleasing to DeFoggi rather than evidence indicative of participation in a child exploitation enterprise. Id. at 2-3. Additionally, DeFoggi contends any probative value in the chats is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Id. at 3. DeFoggi acknowledges the chats are highly graphic and describe the violent sexual torture and killing of children. Id.; see Ex. 2. DeFoggi argues the chats contained fantasy and as such they are overly prejudicial because they describe murder, maiming, and decapitation, which are outside  [*16] the crime of exploitation of children. See TR. 56. DeFoggi asserts the content of these chats creates a likelihood jurors may base a decision of guilt on improper bias or an emotional reaction to the messages. Id. Moreover, DeFoggi argues suppression of the chats does not deprive the government of vital evidence in the case in light of evidence the individual using the particular usernames clicked on images portraying child pornography. Id. at 4.

Opposing DeFoggi's motion in limine, the government filed a brief (Filing No. 126) contending the content of the chats are integral to showing DeFoggi knowingly entered into a conspiracy and intended for it to succeed. See Filing No. 126 - Brief p. 8. Additionally, the government argues the chats are evidence linking DeFoggi to Website A through the usernames and his intent to view and distribute child pornography. Id. at 8-11.

"Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Nevertheless, a "court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger  [*17] of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence of chats between a defendant and another may be admissible to show the defendant's state of mind, his intention to possess child pornography, and his knowledge of the illegal nature of the images. See United States v. Brumfield, 686 F.3d 960, 963 (8th Cir. 2012). Chats may be "admissible for an additional reason: as circumstantial evidence (i.e., a non-hearsay purpose) associating [the defendant] with the child pornography found on his computer." United States v. Manning, 738 F.3d 937, 943 (8th Cir. 2014); see United States v. Christie, 624 F.3d 558, 570 (3d Cir. 2010) (noting notebooks and posts to website suggesting the defendant was a predator not unduly prejudicial where they indicated the defendant visited a child pornography website with the purpose of exchanging child pornography); United States v. Hite, 916 F. Supp. 2d 110, 117, 122 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding chats of a graphic nature not unfairly prejudicial when they were "relevant evidence of intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake  [*18] in that it is probative of his sexual attraction to young children, and reflects [they had] previous conversations about similar topics"). In fact, images of child pornography, themselves, may not be unfairly prejudicial to a defendant, despite his willingness to stipulate to the content of the clips, to demonstrate a representative sample of images found to have been downloaded by a particular user to a computer. United States v. Worthey, 716 F.3d 1107, 1114-15 (8th Cir. 2013).

The court will not recommend limiting the government's evidence to exclude the chats. Here, the content of the chats, while graphic and aberrant, has some tendency to make certain facts more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Such facts are of consequence in this action. In particular, the chats, both the existence of them and the content, tend to show the identity, intent, and knowledge of the participants. The prejudicial nature of the chats' content does not outweigh the probative value. Essentially the nature of the chats enhances their probative value particularly with respect to the identity and intent of the participant. Upon consideration,

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice