## Facts

- Scott Hayward co-owned a competitive cheerleading school in Pennsylvania and served as a coach to minor cheerleaders.
- In early 2000, Hayward traveled to Europe with PCC cheerleaders (including minors ages 16 and 17) for a “World Tour of Champions” trip that included a competition.
- At a pre-trip parents’ meeting, Hayward distributed an itinerary with strict rules (including bans on alcohol and certain contacts) and represented that multiple adults would chaperone.
- After the parents’ meeting, Hayward met with the girls alone, told them the itinerary was “just for show,” stated they would be allowed to drink alcohol, and suggested secrecy about conduct on the trip.
- When the group departed, Hayward was initially the only chaperone because the other adults did not travel with the group at the outset.
- The government introduced expert testimony from a behavioral scientist about general “grooming” methods used by child molesters to select and seduce victims.
- The district court limited the expert to general descriptions and barred any opinion that Hayward fit a “profile” or that he was a child molester.
- A jury convicted Hayward of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a).
- The district court imposed a prison term, supervised release, and restitution; Hayward appealed both conviction and sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (and Daubert/Kumho Tire) by admitting expert testimony describing general grooming patterns of child molesters.
2. Whether the expert testimony functioned as impermissible “profile” or propensity evidence barred by Rules 403 and 404(b).
3. Whether the probative value of the expert background testimony was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
4. Whether sentencing errors (including guideline and restitution determinations) required vacatur and remand.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert’s general grooming-pattern testimony under Rule 702 because it could assist the jury and was properly constrained.
- The court concluded the testimony, as limited, did not constitute impermissible profile or character evidence and did not violate Rules 403 or 404(b).
- The Third Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing due to sentencing errors, including restitution/guideline issues.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 702 permits expert testimony that is reliable and helpful to the jury; trial courts act as gatekeepers and have broad discretion in admitting or excluding expert evidence.
- Expert testimony explaining general behavioral patterns (e.g., grooming methods) may be admissible as background to aid jurors in interpreting conduct that may otherwise appear innocuous.
- Courts must prevent expert evidence from becoming “profile” proof of guilt; limiting the expert to general descriptions and prohibiting any direct application to the defendant mitigates propensity risk.
- Under Rule 403, explanatory expert testimony may be admitted when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly where the trial court imposes strict scope limits.
- An appellate court may affirm a conviction yet vacate and remand for resentencing when sentencing determinations contain reversible errors.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that carefully limited expert testimony about general grooming patterns was admissible to assist the jury without improperly branding the defendant as fitting a criminal “profile,” affirmed the § 2423(a) conviction, and remanded for resentencing due to sentencing errors.


United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631 (3d Cir. 2004)