United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
M. MUNLEY JUDGE.
the court for disposition is Defendant Charles J. Senke's
motion in limine to preclude proffered 404(b) evidence (Doc.
114). The issue has been briefed and is ripe for disposition.
December 20, 2016, the grand jury indicted the defendant on
charges of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual
conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) and online
enticement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). (Doc.
Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office performed an
online undercover sting operation attempting to find adults
seeking unlawful contact with minors. No. minors were
involved in the investigation. Instead, an agent masqueraded
as a minor on an LGBT website, Gay.com. After chatting for a
time on the website and through text messages, the defendant
and the investigator allegedly decided to meet. Authorities
arrested defendant when he arrived for the meeting.
charges were brought in Pennsylvania state court. Almost two
years later, however, the federal government brought the
instant charges against the defendant in this court. The
state court charges were dismissed.
court appointed an assistant federal public defender to
represent the defendant. In February 2017, the court granted
defendant's counsel leave to withdraw and allowed the
defendant to proceed pro se. On April 10, 2017, the
government filed a motion in limine to preclude the defendant
from using an entrapment defense.
September 19, 2017, we denied the government's motion in
limine. Approximately two weeks later, the government filed a
superseding indictment. (Doc. 93). The superseding indictment
adds an additional charge, Attempted Transfer of Obscene
Material to a Minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470.
(Doc. 93, Count 3). As with the other counts, this count does
not relate to an actual minor but rather involves an
undercover law enforcement officer. (Id.)
trial brief, the government indicates that it seeks to
present evidence at trial of certain videos found on the
defendant's mobile telephone. The defendant has filed a
motion in limine to preclude this evidence, bringing the
matter to its present posture.
government describes the evidence at issue as follows:
A search of the defendant's iPhone subsequent to his
arrest revealed obscene videos created by the defendant
involving sexual conduct with a young male. One such video
depicts a young male on his knees, wearing a dog collar, with
the defendant holding him by a leash. During the video, the
defendant commands the male to eat and drink from dog dishes,
and then commands him to perform oral sex on the defendant,
which is also captured on the video.
(Doc. 112, Gov't Trial Br. at 18-19). The government
intends to present this evidence if the defendant presents an
entrapment defense. The defendant has filed a motion in
limine to preclude the videos.
government's brief seems to provide two bases for the
admission of the evidence. First, the government asserts that
the evidence is directly relevant to the instant charges, and
second, it is admissible evidence of other crimes, wrongs or