United States v. McKibbins
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18475, 656 F.3d 707, 2011 WL 3890450 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence showing the contents of what a defendant attempted to destroy is direct evidence of the intent element for an obstruction of justice charge and is not barred by Rule 404(b). However, the trial court must still conduct a balancing test under Rule 403 to determine if the evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and the failure to do so constitutes an error, which may be deemed harmless if other evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
Facts:
- Patrick McKibbins, a 40-year-old man, began an online chat relationship with 'Ashley,' whom he believed to be a 15-year-old girl but who was actually an undercover police officer.
- Over several weeks, their conversations became sexually explicit, and McKibbins masturbated on a webcam for 'Ashley'.
- McKibbins arranged to meet 'Ashley' in a park in a Chicago suburb on January 3, 2008.
- He drove from his home in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Illinois for the planned meeting, bringing two boxes of condoms with him.
- Federal agents, who were conducting surveillance, arrested McKibbins as he was walking towards the park.
- After his detention hearing, McKibbins learned that the government had a search warrant for his electronic devices.
- McKibbins then made several frantic phone calls to his family, asking them to remove and hide his computer, CDs, and floppy disks.
- His family members refused to conceal the items, which were later seized by government agents.
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick McKibbins was indicted in federal district court on three counts: attempting to persuade a minor into sexual activity, interstate travel for a prohibited sexual act, and obstruction of justice.
- Prior to trial, the government filed a motion in limine seeking to admit photographs recovered from McKibbins's seized electronic devices.
- McKibbins opposed the motion, arguing the evidence was barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
- The district court granted the government's motion, ruling the photographs were admissible as direct evidence of the obstruction charge.
- A jury found McKibbins guilty on all three counts.
- McKibbins (appellant) appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the district court's evidentiary ruling; the United States was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court commit a reversible error by admitting potentially prejudicial photographs as direct evidence of an obstruction of justice charge without explicitly conducting a balancing test under Federal Rule of Evidence 403?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, Circuit Judge.
No, the district court's error was not reversible because it was harmless. Although the court erred by failing to conduct a required balancing test, the error did not affect the defendant's substantial rights given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court reasoned that the photographs were not inadmissible propensity evidence under Rule 404(b) but were instead direct evidence of the obstruction of justice charge, as they demonstrated McKibbins's 'corrupt intent' and motive for trying to hide his electronic devices. However, even as direct evidence, the court was obligated to perform a Rule 403 balancing test to weigh the evidence's probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice. The district court's failure to conduct this analysis on the record was an error. This error was ultimately harmless because the other evidence against McKibbins—including chat logs, a video of him masturbating, recorded phone calls asking family to hide evidence, and his travel across state lines with condoms—was overwhelming, meaning the jury would have convicted him even without seeing the disputed photographs.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the content of materials a defendant attempts to destroy can be used as direct evidence to prove the 'corrupt intent' element of an obstruction of justice charge, thereby avoiding the prohibitions of Rule 404(b) on propensity evidence. However, the decision strongly reinforces the mandatory nature of the Rule 403 balancing test, reminding trial courts that even direct evidence must be weighed for unfair prejudice. The finding of harmless error underscores the high threshold for overturning a conviction on evidentiary grounds, especially when the prosecution's other evidence is exceptionally strong, but also serves as a warning to prosecutors against 'flooding' a jury with potentially prejudicial evidence when it is not necessary.
