## Facts

- Grady William Powers lived with his family on the Cherokee Indian Reservation in Robbinsville, North Carolina.
- The government alleged that, between November 1989 and September 1990, Powers repeatedly raped and molested his daughter Brandi when she was nine and ten years old.
- Trial evidence indicated Powers often sent Brandi’s brother out of the house so he could assault Brandi.
- In fall 1990, Brandi disclosed the abuse to her brother, who told their mother; when confronted, Powers initially denied the allegations but later admitted molesting Brandi.
- Brandi’s mother directed Powers to leave the home; she later reported the assaults to authorities in 1992.
- A federal grand jury charged Powers with ten counts of engaging in sexual acts with a person under twelve within federal territorial jurisdiction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
- A jury convicted Powers on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to 480 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal, Powers challenged several evidentiary rulings: admission of family-violence evidence under Rule 404(b), exclusion of evidence about Brandi’s sexual behavior under Rule 412, and exclusion of a defense psychologist’s “profile” testimony under Rules 401, 702, and Daubert.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Powers’s prior family violence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and Rule 403.
2. Whether the district court erred by excluding evidence of the child victim’s alleged sexual behavior under Federal Rule of Evidence 412.
3. Whether the district court erred under Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 702 by excluding defense expert testimony that Powers did not match a psychological profile of certain incest offenders.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Powers’s pattern of violence toward family members under Rule 404(b), and the Rule 403 balance supported admission.
- The court upheld exclusion of evidence concerning the victim’s alleged sexual behavior under Rule 412 because it did not fall within an exception and risked improper credibility attacks.
- The court upheld exclusion of the defense psychologist’s proposed “profile” testimony, concluding it did not sufficiently relate to whether Powers committed the charged acts and could mislead the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Other-acts evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) only if it is offered for a non-character purpose; the trial court must also assess necessity, reliability, and whether unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value under Rule 403.
- In child sexual abuse prosecutions, evidence of intrafamily violence may be admitted to explain the household context, the victim’s fear and behavior, and the defendant’s control over the victim, when those matters bear on disputed issues beyond propensity.
- Rule 412 generally bars evidence of an alleged victim’s other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition; it is admissible only within narrow exceptions and cannot be used primarily to invite sexual stereotyping or improper inferences about credibility.
- Under Daubert and Rule 702, expert testimony must be relevant and “helpful” to the jury; testimony about offender “profiles” may be excluded when it lacks a sufficient connection to the historical fact the jury must decide and risks an unwarranted inference that a defendant is less likely guilty because he does not match the profile.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Powers’s child-sex-abuse convictions, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in admitting contextual evidence of family violence under Rule 404(b), excluding evidence of the child victim’s sexual history under Rule 412, and excluding defense psychological profile evidence under Daubert as not helpful to determining whether the charged abuse occurred.


United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460 (4th Cir. 1995)