## Facts

- Richard Romero (36) met a 12-year-old boy (“Erich”) in an internet chat room and initially misrepresented his age as 15, later 20.
- Over about a year, Romero maintained contact with Erich through emails and phone calls and persuaded Erich to run away with him.
- Romero traveled from Florida to Illinois, met Erich, and they boarded a bus traveling toward Florida.
- Authorities intercepted them in Louisville, Kentucky, arrested Romero, and recovered Erich.
- Romero was charged with multiple federal offenses, including kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 and an offense involving travel with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor.
- At trial, the government called FBI Special Agent Kenneth Lanning as an expert on the modus operandi of “preferential child molesters,” describing common grooming behaviors and characteristics.
- The district court restricted the testimony to general patterns and required objections question-by-question to prevent any explicit opinion that Romero was a child molester or had a specific intent toward Erich.
- Romero was convicted on all counts.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting expert testimony describing the modus operandi and grooming behaviors of “preferential child molesters” improperly communicated an opinion on Romero’s intent or guilt, invading the jury’s role.
2. Whether the expert’s “profile-like” testimony was inadmissible character or “group propensity” evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the limited expert testimony.
- The testimony was confined to general grooming patterns and did not directly opine on Romero’s intent or guilt.
- The testimony was admitted for permissible purposes (context for evaluating intent, planning, and behavior), not to prove propensity in violation of Rule 404.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony is admissible when it assists the jury with matters beyond ordinary experience, including explaining criminal methods or grooming patterns.
- Expert testimony may describe a class’s modus operandi without stating that the defendant belongs to the class or had the charged intent; the jury must decide whether the defendant’s conduct fits the described pattern.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 404 does not bar all testimony that resembles profiling; evidence linked to non-propensity purposes such as intent, preparation, plan, or absence of mistake may be admissible when properly limited.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to police the line between helpful context and impermissible ultimate-issue conclusions, including by restricting questions and enforcing contemporaneous objections.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Romero’s convictions, holding that properly limited expert testimony about preferential child molesters’ grooming methods was admissible to help the jury assess intent and did not amount to forbidden character or ultimate-issue evidence.


United States v. Romero, 189 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 1999)