## Facts

- William Batton and his family lived next to the victim’s family in Douglas, Wyoming, and the families developed a close friendship over several years.
- After the victim’s parents moved away and later divorced, Batton remained close to the victim’s mother and her children, paying particular attention to J.D., the younger son, who was struggling with the divorce.
- With the mother’s permission, Batton took J.D. on outings and for overnight visits, presenting these trips as a way for J.D. to get away from stress at home.
- Batton transported J.D., then 14 years old, from Wyoming to Chicago and sexually assaulted him.
- At trial, the government introduced evidence that Batton previously was convicted of sexually assaulting another 14-year-old family friend, which the prosecution argued was similar to the charged conduct.
- The government also presented expert testimony, after a Daubert hearing, limited to general methods used by child sex offenders to recruit and groom victims; the expert was barred from offering case-specific opinions about Batton or guilt.
- A jury convicted Batton of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), and the district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Batton’s prior child-molestation conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 414 and by failing to exclude it under Rule 403.
2. Whether the court’s limiting instruction regarding the permissible use of the prior-act evidence was erroneous or misleading.
3. Whether admitting expert testimony describing general grooming and recruitment methods of child sex offenders violated Rules 702 and 403 or constituted impermissible “profile” evidence.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the prior conviction was admissible under Rule 414 and was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 given the similarity to the charged offense, its probative value in a credibility-driven case, and the district court’s balancing.
- The court held the jury instructions, read as a whole, properly limited the use of the prior-act evidence and did not deprive Batton of a fair trial.
- The court held the expert testimony was sufficiently reliable and relevant under Rule 702, properly confined to general explanations rather than defendant-specific conclusions, and not excludable under Rule 403.

## Legal Principles

- In a child-molestation prosecution, Rule 414 permits admission of evidence of the defendant’s prior child-molestation offenses, subject to Rule 403’s requirement that unfair prejudice not substantially outweigh probative value.
- Similarity between prior and charged conduct, temporal proximity, and the prosecution’s need for corroborative evidence may support admission of Rule 414 evidence under Rule 403.
- Limiting instructions are evaluated in context; instructions are adequate if they convey that prior-act evidence has a restricted purpose and that the defendant is tried only for the charged offense.
- Expert testimony on grooming may be admissible under Rule 702 when it is based on specialized knowledge, assists the jury in understanding offender-victim dynamics, and is limited to general behavioral patterns rather than asserting the defendant matches a profile or is guilty.
- Rule 403 concerns about prejudice or confusion from expert “grooming” testimony may be addressed through pretrial reliability screening, strict scope limitations, and adversarial testing at trial.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld Batton’s conviction, concluding the district court acted within its discretion in admitting prior child-molestation evidence under Rule 414 after Rule 403 balancing, providing a proper limiting instruction, and allowing carefully limited expert testimony explaining general grooming methods without turning it into defendant-specific profile evidence.


United States v. Batton, 602 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2010)