United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
OPINION AND ORDER
K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court on a motion (DE 65) by defendant
Easa Eqal to exclude all evidence of certain other wrongs or
acts committed by him and also to exclude any statements from
or references to his interview with law enforcement officers.
charged with one count of receiving child pornography in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and one count of
possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
this motion, Eqal asks the Court to exclude evidence of other
acts by him under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). That rule
provides that the government may not introduce evidence of
other acts by a defendant to prove the person acted in
accordance with his character on a particular occasion.
Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)(1). Such evidence is, however, admissible
for other purposes such as proving intent, knowledge or
absence of mistake. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)(2).
evidence at issue consists of evidence that Eqal stole
underwear from luggage while working as a baggage handler at
Bluegrass Airport. Eqal argues this evidence is unrelated to
the crime at issue and will confuse or inflame the jury. Eqal
also moves to exclude evidence that he had sexual
interactions with underage individuals in chat rooms and/or
in person. He argues these allegations are unrelated to the
crimes he is charged with and ignores that he was also
underage at the time. Thus, they have no probative value.
United States asserts that it will not introduce the evidence
at issue unless Eqal is permitted to introduce evidence of
his diagnosis with Autism Spectrum Disorder as a defense to
the charges. At a pretrial conference on April 16, 2018, the
Court ruled that it would not permit the defense to introduce
evidence of Eqal's autism diagnosis at trial because such
evidence is irrelevant to the elements of the crimes he is
charged with committing.
count 1 of the indictment - the "receiving charge"-
the government must prove:
First: That the defendant knowingly received a visual
depiction as alleged in the indictment.
Second: That the production of the visual depiction involved
the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Third: That the visual depiction was of a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct.
Fourth: That the defendant knew that the visual depiction was
of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Fifth: That the visual depiction was received using any means
of interstate or foreign commerce or contained materials that
had been mailed or shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce by any means including computer.
Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction No. 16.05.
count 2 of the indictment - the possession count - the