## Facts

- Timothy Majeroni was charged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine with possession of child pornography after pornographic materials were found on his laptop computer.
- Before trial, the United States moved in limine to admit evidence that Majeroni had previously pleaded guilty to, and been convicted of, possession of child pornography in 2001.
- The 2001 conviction also arose from child‑pornography materials found on Majeroni’s laptop computer.
- The government sought to introduce the 2001 conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 414, which permits evidence that a defendant committed “any other child molestation” in a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of “child molestation.”
- Majeroni conceded that both the charged offense and the 2001 conviction qualified as “child molestation” within Rule 414(d)(2)’s definition (which includes certain child‑pornography offenses).
- Majeroni argued that, even if Rule 414 applied, the evidence should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because the probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
- In support, Majeroni emphasized (1) the roughly 12‑year time gap between the 2001 conviction and the current charge and (2) the government’s ability to rely on other evidence of guilt without using the prior conviction.

## Issues

1. In a prosecution for possession of child pornography, may the government introduce the defendant’s 2001 child‑pornography conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 414?
2. If Rule 414 permits admission, must the court nonetheless exclude the prior conviction under Rule 403 because of unfair prejudice, including the time gap and the government’s other proof?

## Decision

- The court held that Rule 414 authorized admission of Majeroni’s 2001 child‑pornography conviction because both the prior conviction and the charged offense fell within Rule 414’s definition of “child molestation.”
- The court determined that Rule 403 did not require exclusion: the prior conviction had meaningful probative value (including on knowing possession and absence of mistake) that was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
- The court granted the government’s motion in limine and allowed the government to introduce evidence of the 2001 conviction at trial.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 414 permits the government, in a criminal case involving “child molestation,” to offer evidence that the defendant committed other acts of “child molestation,” including qualifying child‑pornography conduct covered by Rule 414(d)(2).
- Evidence admitted under Rule 414 remains subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 403; the court must exclude it only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (or other listed Rule 403 concerns).
- In child‑pornography possession cases, a prior conviction for similar conduct can be probative of the defendant’s knowing possession and lack of mistake, especially when the prior and current conduct share close similarities.
- The passage of time between the prior act and the charged offense is a factor in Rule 403 balancing but does not automatically bar admission; similarity and the purpose for which the evidence is offered matter.
- The existence of other prosecution evidence does not, by itself, make Rule 414 evidence inadmissible; Rule 403 asks whether the specific evidence’s probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

In United States v. Majeroni, the District of Maine granted the government’s pretrial motion to admit evidence of Majeroni’s 2001 child‑pornography conviction under Rule 414, concluding after Rule 403 balancing that the conviction’s probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice even though it was about 12 years old and the government had other evidence.


United States v. Majeroni, No. 2:13-cr-37-GZS (2013)