United States v. Stanley Weber ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 10 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30022
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:18-cr-00014-BMM-1
v.
STANLEY PATRICK WEBER, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 6, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: M. SMITH and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Stanley Weber appeals his conviction, arguing that the district court abused
its discretion when it allowed the prosecution to present certain propensity
evidence at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 414. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. Weber challenges the application of United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018(9th Cir. 2001) for determining whether to admit Rule 414 evidence. Weber
asserts that “the LeMay analysis does not require courts to balance the probative
value of [Rule 414] evidence against anything,” “giv[ing] the government [a]
forbidden blank check to admit sexual misconduct evidence whenever it wishes.”
We disagree. In Lemay, we expressly acknowledged that “evidence of a
defendant’s prior acts of molestation will always be emotionally charged and
inflammatory,” id. at 1030 (emphasis added), and requires that the “protections of
Rule 403 remain in place to ensure” that “the right to a fair trial remains adequately
safeguarded,” id. at 1026. Indeed, LeMay demands that courts “carefully evaluate
the potential inflammatory nature of the proffered testimony” against the probative
value of the evidence offered. Id. at 1030. Thus, contrary to Weber’s arguments,
courts applying LeMay must conduct the necessary Rule 403 balancing, admitting
Rule 414 evidence only when the LeMay factors suggest that its relevance is not
substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Id. at 1031.
2
In fact, although LeMay’s factors do not require a court to explicitly state the
dangers of the Rule 414 evidence at issue, the factors only make sense when one
first acknowledges the inherently prejudicial nature of such evidence. If weighing
evidence’s prejudicial effect were not required under the Lemay analysis, the sole
question for a court to consider would be whether the evidence was relevant; there
would be no need to consider the degree of relevance, as LeMay demands. See id.at 1027–30. Accordingly, weighing the prejudicial effect against the probative
value of such evidence is a vital piece of the LeMay factor analysis.
Finally, Weber argues that “Lemay must be improperly skewed,” because
case law “shows that district courts admit extraneous sexual misconduct evidence
as a matter of course.” However, Weber’s conclusory argument is flawed. That
evidence is routinely admitted doesn’t necessarily prove that the analysis by which
it is admitted is flawed, especially where, as here: (1) the analysis is, by its very
nature, fact- and context-dependent, see id. at 1026–31; and (2) “the clear intent of
Congress” in enacting Rule 414 was “that evidence of prior similar acts be
admitted in child molestation prosecutions,” id. at 1030; see also United States v.
Sioux, 362 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that Rules 413–415
“establish[ed] a presumption—but not ‘a blank check’—favoring the admission of
propensity evidence at both civil and criminal trials involving charges of sexual
3
misconduct”). Thus, Weber’s arguments that LeMay’s factor analysis is unsound
are unavailing.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the propensity
evidence in this case. “A district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse
of discretion.” United States v. Thornhill, 940 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2019). It
is apparent from the record that the district court conducted the proper Rule 403
balancing in determining whether to admit the Rule 414 evidence. For example,
the district court only allowed some of the available propensity evidence—one
witness to testify about each type of assault charged—that it determined was most
relevant to the charged conduct. Furthermore, the court appropriately weighed the
LeMay factors in admitting the evidence.
Thus, because the district court’s determination was neither “illogical,”
“implausible,” nor “without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts
in the record,” it did not abuse its discretion in admitting this propensity evidence.
Perry v. Brown, 667 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up) (quoting United
States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)).
AFFIRMED.
4