United States v. Drew Endacott

MEMORANDUM

Drew Michael Endacott appeals his conviction for transportation and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(l); 2252A(a)(5)(B), respectively. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here. We affirm.

I

Endacott is not entitled to a reversal based on the jury’s exposure to extrinsic evidence. There is no “reasonable possibility that the extrinsic material could have affected the verdict.” United States v. Prime, 431 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir.2005). The extrinsic evidence received by some jurors was mitigated by the district court’s curative instructions. Id. at 1158 . More importantly, the evidence introduced at trial against Endacott was very strong. United States v. Montes, 628 F.3d 1183 , 1189 (9th Cir.2011). We conclude that there was insufficient prejudice to warrant reversal. Tong Xiong v. Fellcer, 681 F.3d 1067 , 2012 WL 1994716 , at *7-*8 (9th Cir. June 5, 2012).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government to introduce images of child pornography and excerpts from Endacott’s journal into evidence. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that evidence may be…