First, the Court upheld the exclusion of the defendant's
expert testimony on the ground that admitting it would have violated Rule
704(b), which prohibits an expert from opining on the defendant's intent. That expert would have directly testified
that there was insufficient clinical and behavioral evidence that the defendant
intended to have real sex with a minor rather than act out a fantasy involving
adults. The Court expressed no view on a
whether a more limited, less direct version of expert testimony would have been
admissible.
Second, the Court found no reversible error in permitting a special
agent to offer lay opinion testimony regarding the age of a girl in a picture
posted on Craigslist, what Craigslist is used for, whether the picture would
have been "flagged," what the defendant meant in the ad, and the
agent's interpretation of email communications between him and the defendant. Although the court erroneously admitted that
lay opinion as expert opinion, that error was harmless because much of his
testimony, including which posts would be "flagged," would have been
proper lay opinion testimony that was not based on specialized knowledge from
his law-enforcement experience. Moreover,
even if some of the testimony required specialized knowledge that should have
been disclosed and presented as expert testimony, that was harmless because the
court would have admitted it as such even if the defense had file a motion to
exclude it, and ample evidence supported the conviction.
Third, the Court rejected the defendant's argument that the
evidence was insufficient to prove his intent, or that he took a substantial
step toward carrying out that intent.
Although there was an innocent explanation for his conduct, the jury
was free to reject it, particularly because the defendant testified at trial.
Fourth, the Court upheld a sentencing enhancement for
obstruction based on perjurious testimony at trial. The Court rejected the defendant's argument
that the district court failed to make sufficient factual findings.
Finally, the Court found no reversible error in denying a
motion for new trial based on a Brady and Rule 16 violation. The Court found that, although the court used
the wrong legal standard, even if the agent's prior disciplinary history was Brady
material, it would not have affected the outcome of the trial had it been
disclosed, so any error was harmless.
