United States v. Jayme Walker
917 F.3d 1004 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 412 generally prohibits the admission of a victim's other sexual behavior in a sexual misconduct case. An exception is not met by offering evidence of a victim's general sexual communications with others to argue the defendant did not induce the creation of the explicit images at issue.
Facts:
- Jayme Walker met W.F., a fourteen-year-old, on a social media site for adults.
- Although W.F. falsely claimed he was eighteen to join the site, he informed Walker that he was actually fourteen.
- Between June 2013 and February 2014, Walker and W.F. exchanged sexual messages and images through the website and text messages.
- The communications ended when W.F.'s mother discovered the exchanges, which prompted a police investigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Jayme Walker was charged by information in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
- Following a trial, a jury found Walker guilty on three counts, including Sexual Exploitation of a Minor.
- The district court sentenced Walker to 264 months in prison.
- Walker, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 412 prohibit a defendant, charged with sexual exploitation of a minor, from introducing evidence of the minor victim's general sexual communications with other individuals to argue that the defendant did not induce the creation of the explicit images?
Opinions:
Majority - Gruender, J.
Yes. Federal Rule of Evidence 412 prohibits introducing evidence of the minor victim's general sexual communications with others because it does not fall within the rule's narrow exceptions. The court found that Walker's attempt to introduce evidence of W.F.'s sexual history was not to prove that a specific person other than the defendant was the source of specific physical evidence, as required by Exception 412(b)(1)(A). Instead, Walker sought to show that this behavior was W.F.'s 'hobby,' which is the type of general propensity evidence the rule is designed to exclude. Furthermore, excluding the evidence did not violate Walker's constitutional rights under Exception 412(b)(1)(C) because the exclusion was not 'arbitrary or disproportionate' to the rule's purpose of protecting victims from harassment and embarrassment.
Concurring - Kelly, J.
Yes. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's conclusion and reasoning regarding the Rule 412 issue and ultimate judgment, but disagrees with its analysis of the cross-examination time limit. The concurrence argues that the district court's limitation on the cross-examination of W.F. did violate Walker's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because it was an arbitrary and disproportionate restriction based solely on a weak interest in 'efficiency.' However, this constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the prosecution's case was overwhelmingly strong, particularly due to Walker's own inculpatory statements admitting he knew W.F. was underage and could get him in trouble. Therefore, the error did not affect the trial's outcome.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong protective function of Federal Rule of Evidence 412, often called the rape shield law, in the modern context of online child exploitation. The court's decision narrowly interprets the exception for proving an alternative source of 'physical evidence,' requiring a defendant to link the proffered evidence to the specific images in the case, rather than making general arguments about the victim's sexual predisposition. This sets a high bar for defendants seeking to introduce a victim's sexual history, prioritizing the legislative goal of protecting victims from undue harassment over a defendant's broad claims about trial strategy. The holding solidifies that a defense strategy suggesting a victim's general promiscuity is not a valid basis to overcome Rule 412's prohibitions.
