USA v. Prater

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America,
V.
Cody Prater,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56
Judge Michael H. Watson
OPINIONAND ORDER
The Government moves for a pre-trial ruling that Defendant's 20191
convictions in the Athens County Common Pleas Court for Pandering Sexually
Oriented Matter Involving a Minor ("2019 Convictions") are admissible under
Federal Rule of Evidence 414. Notice, ECF No. 34. It also seeks a pretrial ruling
as to the admissibility of seven categories of evidence under Federal Rule of
Evidence 404(b). Id.
Defendantopposes the introduction of the 2019 Convictions, the collateral
consequences of those convictions, and one of the categories of Rule 404(b)
evidence (concerning Defendant's prior involvement with the furry community2
1 Defendant suggests that the convictions occurred in 2018, but the docket for the
Athens County Common Pleas Court states that judgment was entered on June 4,
2019. Compare Resp. 7, ECF No. 54 with docket st ;e©t. The Court therefore refers to
these as the 2019 Convictions, but its analysis would not change even if there were an
eight-year gap, as Defendant suggests, instead of a seven-year gap between offenses.
2 For an explanation of the furry community, please see Notice 1, ECF No. 34, and
Resp. 9 n. 2, ECF No. 54
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

under the alias "Kaji Taiki"). 3 Resp., ECF No. 54. hie requests a hearing. Id. at
1.
The Court concludes that no hearing is necessary and addresses each
category of disputed evidence in turn.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the Government's Notice seeks a preliminary ruling admitting
certain evidence, see Notice, ECF No. 34, and because Defendant's response
seeks a pretrial ruling excluding that evidence, see Resp., ECF No. 54, the Court
treats the filings as motions in limine.
"A ruling on a motion in limine is no more than a preliminary, or advisory,
opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court. " United States
v. Yannott, 42 F. 3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The advanced
ruling aids the parties "in formulating their trial strategy, " but a court "may change
3 Defendant's response does not address the six other categories of information that the
Government seeks to admit under Rule 404(b) or as res gestae evidence. Namely, the
Government seeks to introduce evidence that Defendant: "(1) employed various means
of encryption to protect his illegal activities including a TAILS Operating System,
(2) utilized several aliases, (3) utilized the dark web TOR browser, (4) visited several
online websites known to be repositories of child pornography, (5) communicated with
unknown individuals online about the use ofArtificial Intelligence (Al) to create child
pornography and obscene images . .. and (7) searched several terms online that
evidence an effort to locate child pornography on the internet. " Notice 1, ECF No. 34.
The Court considers those categories of evidence as unopposed unless Defendant
notifies the Court otherwise. Therefore, the Court TENTATIVELY GRANTS those
portions of the Government's motion and considers herein only whether Defendant's
2019 Convictions (and the collateral consequences of the same) and his involvement in
the furry community under the alias "Kaji Taiki" are admissible.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 2 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 2 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

its ruling on a motion in limine where sufficient facts have developed to warrant
the change. " Id. (citation omitted).
II. ANALYSIS
A. Defendant's 2019 Convictions
The Government argues that Defendant's 2019 Convictions are admissible
under Federal Rule of Evidence 414. Notice 10-13, ECF No. 34.
1. Admissibility, Generally
"In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation,
the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child
molestation. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is
relevant. " Fed. R. Evid. 414(a). Rule 414 thus creates an exception to Rule
404's ban on propensity evidence, but the prior act evidence is still subject to
Rule 403's balancing test. United States v. Libbey-Tipton, 948 F. 3d 694, 701 (6th
dr. 2020) (citation omitted).
In this case, the charges against Defendant in Counts I and V of the
Indictment satisfy Rule 414's definition of "child molestation. " See Fed. R. Evid.
414(d)(2)(B) (defining "child molestation" as "any conduct prohibited by 18 U. S.C
chapter 110"); Indictment fllT 1, 5, ECF No. 18. This is thus "a criminal case in
which a defendant is accused of child molestation."
Moreover, the parties agree that Defendant's 2019 Convictions satisfy the
definition of "child molestation, " such that they are "evidence that the defendant
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 3 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 3 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

committed any other child molestation. " Notice 10-11, ECF No. 34; Resp., ECF
No. 54.
The plain language of Rule 414 is therefore satisfied so long as the 2019
Convictions evidence is "relevant" to a matter in Counts I and V.
It is. Here, the 2019 Convictions are relevant to Defendant's propensity for
possessing child pornography, which is probative to his guilt in that it tends to
prove both identity and absence of mistake. E. g., United States v. Veerkamp,
No. 23-3485, 2024 WL 3378459, at *5 (6th Cir. July 11, 2024) ("The probative
value of this evidence is clear-because Veerkamp disputed his identity as the
producer and possessor of the child pornography ... , the government sought to
introduce evidence that would establish his propensity to engage in such
conduct. "); United States v. Jones, 747 F. App'x 348, 358 (6th Cir. 2018) ("Here
Jones's 1991 conviction had probative value to show his sexual interest in
children, which was relevant to his motive and intent to knowingly receive child
pornography. Moreover, it helped to rebut Jones's defense that others were
responsible for the child pornography on his computer. "); United States v.
Deuman, 568 F. App'x 414, 420 (6th Cir. 2014) ("Rule 414 itself was a strong
legislative judgment that evidence of prior sexual offenses have probative value
and should ordinarily be admissible. " (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)); United States v. Trepanier, 576 F. App'x 531, 534 (6th Cir. 2014) ("Rule
414(a) reflects congressional recognition that prior acts of sexual misconduct
involving children, including possession of child pornography, are probative to
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 4 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 4 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

show an offender's propensity for committing a similar charged offense. " (citation
omitted)). The 2019 Convictions evidence is also relevant to Defendant's
sentencing, should he be found guilty. See 18 U. S. C. § 2252(b)(2) (creating a
mandatory minimum term of ten years in prison if the defendant committing the
offense had certain prior convictions).
Because the 2019 Convictions evidence falls into Rule 414's exception to
the bar on propensity evidence and is relevant, the Court next considers whether
it passes the Rule 403 balancing test. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 permits the
Court to exclude relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of... unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading
the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence. " Fed. R. Evid. 403. Unfair prejudice "refers to the evidence which
tends to suggest a decision on an improper basis. " United States v. Caver, 470
F. 3d 220, 240 (6th dr. 2006) (citation modified). A district court enjoys "very
broad discretion" in conducting the Rule 403 balancing test. Libbey-Tipton, 948
F. 3d at 705 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
"In considering the probative value of evidence, courts may consider the
closeness in time between the acts, the similarity between the act in question
and the prior act, and the necessity of the evidence to the government's case,
including whether there were less invasive means of obtaining the information. "4
4 Defendant suggests that the Court should consider five factors that the Ninth Circuit
considers in such analyses. Resp. 7, ECF No. 54 (citing United States v. LeMay, 260
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 5 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 5 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Libbey-Tipton, 948 F. 3d at 701 . Here, the available facts indicate that the
probative value of the 2019 Convictions evidence is high.
First, there is no time limit in Rule 414, but courts consider the proximity in
time of the prior act to the charged conduct because "the passage of time could
raise issues of reliability. " Libbey-Tipton, 948 F. 3d at 703. There is no concern
about the reliability of the 2019 Convictions evidence here for two reasons,
though. The 2019 Convictions evidence was close in time to the charged
conduct here. The 2019 Convictions related to acts discovered during a 2017
investigation and involved activity dating back to 2016. Notice 3, ECF No. 34;
Resp. 2, ECF No. 54. The at-issue charges are based on a 2024 investigation.
Notice 4, ECF No. 34. A seven-year gap-especially considering that Defendant
was imprisoned for four of those years-does not render the acts far enough
apart to question the reliability of the prior-act evidence. E. g., Libbey-Tipton, 948
F. 3d at 703 (noting that this Circuit has admitted evidence of a twenty-year-old
F. 3d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 2001), and United States v. Seymour, 468 F. 3d 378, 386 (6th
dr. 2006)). The only two factors considered in LeMaythat are not expressly addressed
in the body of this Opinion and Order are: (1) the frequency of the prior acts; and (2) the
presence or lack of intervening circumstances. The frequency of prior acts has less
weight when the prior act consists of a possession offense instead of a discrete act,
because possession inherently continues. The Court therefore finds that, to the extent
this factor should be considered, it has little effect on the Rule 403 analysis here. As to
intervening circumstances, this factor weighs in favor of admission given that the only
significant intervening factor here is that Defendant spent four years in prison for his
2019 Convictions. The prison time explains a significant portion of the seven-year gap
between the two offenses. Moreover, the fact that Defendant lived with different people
during each offense weighs in favor of reliability because it shows the single constant
between the offenses was Defendant. Thus, without holding that the Court should
consider these two factors, the Court finds that they do not weigh in Defendant's favor in
the Rule 403 analysis.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 6 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 6 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

uncharged act). More importantly, no matter how far into the past the prior-act
evidence occurred, it is extremely reliable here because it consists of convictions
based on guilty pleas (as opposed to, for example, victim testimony or uncharged
conduct). Jones, 747 F. App'x at 357.
The 2019 Convictions evidence and the at-issue conduct is also similar.
Rule 414's plain language implies "that the prior acts do not need to be identical
to be admitted. " Libbey-Tipton, 948 F. 3d at 702 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 414(a)).
Although Defendant argues dissimilarity here because the 2019 Convictions
involved images and videos of "young males" and "prepubescent females" while
the charges here involve videos of "infants, " the fact remains that Defendant's
2019 Convictions were for possession of child pornography-the exact charges
at issue here. Trepanier, 576 F. App'x at 534 ("Here, the evidence of Trepanier's
prior experience with electronic images of child pornography was certainly
probative to show that he, as opposed to his wife or daughter, was the user of the
home computer who had accessed the images of child pornography found
there. "). Moreover, both offenses involved electronic videos and images.
Because both the 2019 Convictions and the at-issue charges involve possession
of electronic child pornography, they are "sufficiently similar"5 to pass the Rule
5 The Court acknowledges that the 2019 Convictions involved real children while Counts
11-IV of the at-issue Indictment involve artificially generated images. See Resp. 8, ECF
No. 54. This dissimilarity is irrelevant to the analysis, however, because Rule 414
applies only to Counts I and V, which, like the 2019 Convictions, allege the involvement
of real children.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 7 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 7 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

403 balancing test. See Veerkamp, 2024 WL 3378459, at *5 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); cf. United States v. Stout, 509 F. 3d 796, 801-02 (6th
Cir. 2007) (conducting a Rule 404(b) analysis and finding the prior act dissimilar
where it involved surreptitious recording of a nude girl but the indicted charges
involved possession of child pornography such that there existed a risk the jury
would use the prior act evidence for Rule 404(b)'s prohibited purpose of
propensity).
The Court next considers the "necessity of the evidence to the
government's case. " Libbey-Tipton, 948 F. 3d at 703 (citation omitted). Here, the
Government seeks to admit Defendant's 2019 Convictions evidence to satisfy
elements of Counts I or V (e. g., identity or absence of mistake) but also to prove
that Defendant was previously convicted of an offense that triggers the increased
penalty. There is obviously no means of proving Defendant's prior convictions
without the 2019 Convictions evidence, so there is high necessity here as it
relates to the sentencing purpose. It likewise seems that the Government has a
high need for the evidence to prove identity (given the presence of another
suspect in the home) and absence of mistake (given the potential for Defendant
to assert that defense) vis-a-vis guilt on Counts I and V. Notice 11-12, ECF No.
34 ("The owner of the devices containing the crux of the Government's evidence
is clearly an essential fact to prove. "). Although the Government can prove
identity and absence of mistake through alternative means (e. g., the alias
evidence), it seems that much of the physical evidence in the case points only to
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 8 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 8 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

particular devices. Defendant's admitted prior possession of child pornography is
highly probative, therefore, to answering the further question of who utilized
those devices to commit the crimes. Indeed, that is exactly why Congress
permitted propensity evidence through Rule 414. Stout, 509 F. 3d 796
("Congress recognized that, in certain cases, sexual misconduct is different from
other crimes. This difference is either that propensity evidence has special value
in certain violent sexual misconduct cases or that the difficulty of and need for
convictions for these crimes warrants a decrease in the usual protections against
propensity and character evidence. "). This is especially true here, given that the
Government intends to produce evidence that the alias "Jasper" was used in
connection with both the 201 9 Convictions and the currently charged crimes.
Notice 12, ECF No. 34. Use of the same alias, coupled with an admission in the
2019 Convictions, tends to prove identity for the at-issue crimes.
Thus, considering all the facts, the probative value of the 2019 Convictions
evidence is high. The 2019 Convictions evidence is reliable, similar to the at-
issue conduct, and sufficiently necessary to the Government's case. It tends to
prove Defendant's sexual interest in children and willingness to break the law
and possess child pornography, which, therefore, tends to prove identity and
absence of mistake here. It is similarly probative for sentencing purposes given
the mandatory minimum in 18 U. S. C. § 2252(b)(2).
Finally, the risk of unfair prejudice is low. Prior act evidence under Rule
414 has been found to be unfairly prejudicial when the details of the prior act
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 Page 9 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 9 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

"were more lurid and more interesting than the evidence surrounding the actual
charges. " Libbey-Tipton, 948 F. 3d at 704 (citation modified). But the mere
"stigma of child molestation" is not enough to cause unfair prejudice. Id. Here,
Defendant presents nothing about the 2019 Convictions evidence that is
particularly more lurid than the evidence surrounding the charged acts. To the
contrary, the similarity of the conduct weighs against a finding of unfair prejudice.
Moreover, to the extent Defendant fears that the jury may find him guilty on
Counts I and V based on his propensity to possess child pornography, that fear is
not a reason to exclude the evidence because the entire purpose of Rule 414 is
to create an exception to the bar against propensity evidence.
Having concluded that the 2019 Convictions evidence is highly probative
and that any prejudice from admitting the same is not unfair, the Court concludes
that Rule 403 does not bar its admission. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the
Government's request to admit the 2019 Convictions evidence and DENIES
Defendant's motion to exclude the same.
2. Scope of Admissibility
But that conclusion merely begs the issue of the proper scope of the
evidence to be admitted. For example, Defendant seeks to exclude evidence
concerning the collateral consequences of the 2019 Convictions-namely, the
fact that he was on parole at the time of the indicted activity and that his 2019
Convictions required him to register as a sex offender. Resp. 2, 5-6, ECF No.
54.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 10 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 10 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

The Court agrees that there is a conceptual difference between the actions
underlying the 2019 Convictions and the collateral consequences of those
convictions so TENTATIVELY GRANTS Defendant's request to exclude the
additional information about his parole status and registration requirement and
TENTATIVELY DENIES any request by the Government to admit the same. That
additional information does not seem probative of either Defendant's guilt or
sentence in this case, and it does not seem to be particularly useful background
information for the jurors, either. To the extent that the Government seeks to
admit evidence of Defendant's status on parole or his registration requirement, it
shall thus seek reconsideration of this in limine ruling and argue that
information's relevance.
On the subject of the scope of admissibility, Defendant next argues that the
2019 Convictions evidence is admissible under Rule 414 vis-a-vis only Counts I
and V, because those are the only counts here that accuse Defendant of "child
molestation, " as defined in the Rule. Thus, he contends, the Court should
bifurcate Counts 11-IV from Counts I and V if it permits the Government to
introduce the 2019 Convictions evidence in connection with Counts I and V.
Resp. 3-4, ECF No. 54 ("Even with a curative instruction, it seems highly unlikely
that a jury would not impermissibly apply this evidence in its consideration of
Counts 11-1V. ").
The Court disagrees. As a preliminary matter, even if the 2019 Convictions
evidence is not admissible as to Counts 11-1V pursuant to Rule 414, it may be
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 11 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 11 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove identity and absence of mistake (but not
propensity) for those counts. See Notice 3, 12, ECF No. 34 (noting the videos
and images underlying the 2019 Convictions were found "in a folder path
featuring the name 'Jasper, '" and that "Jasper" was also an alias used in
connection with the at-issue charges (but not specifying which counts of the
current Indictment are connected to the alias)). Moreover, even if the 2019
Convictions evidence is irrelevant to Counts 11-IV or the Court ultimately
concludes that the evidence should be excluded as to those counts under Rule
403's balancing test, jurors are presumed to follow limiting instructions. E. g.,
United States v. Kennedy, 578 F. App'x 582, 592 (6th Cir. 2014) ("[W]e presume
jurors follow limiting instructions ... . " (citation omitted)). The Court finds no
reason to question the jury's ability to follow a proper instruction here and cabin
their consideration of the evidence to the correct counts. So, the Government is
DIRECTED to inform the Court by December 1, 2025, whether it intends to offer
the 2019 Convictions evidence in connection with Counts II-IV. If so, the Court
will permit additional briefing or entertain a short oral argument as to the
evidence's admissibility in connection with Counts 11-IV. If not, counsel are
encouraged to propose a joint limiting instruction for the Court's consideration,
limiting the jury to considering the 2019 Convictions evidence only in connection
with Counts I and V. Defendant's request to bifurcate the trial, though, is
DENIED.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 12 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 12 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Finally, Defendant argues that the Government should be limited to
accepting Defendant's stipulation as to the 2019 Convictions evidence and
prohibited from introducing the underlying facts about the 2019 Convictions.
Because certain facts (including the alias "Jasper") may be relevant to disputed
issues here (such as identity and absence of mistake), Defendant's motion is
TENTATIVELY DENIED. That does not mean, however, that the Government
may admit unnecessary, unfairly prejudicial, or cumulative factual information
concerning the 2019 Convictions. Without any briefing as to which facts the
Government intends to admit, the Court simply cannot now determine where to
draw the line. The Government is thus DIRECTED to raise this scope issue,
outside the presence of the jury, before it attempts to admit the 2019 Conviction
evidence.
B. Defendant's Involvement in the Furry Community under the Alias
"Kaji Taiki"
The Government also intends to admit evidence that Defendant
participated in the furry community under the alias "Kaji Taiki. " Notice 18-20,
ECF No. 34.
Defendant contends that this evidence amounts to improper propensity
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and thus must be excluded.
Resp. 4-6, ECF No. 54. To the extent the evidence is relevant to anything other
than propensity, he contends that it should nonetheless be excluded under Rule
403. Id. at 6-10. For the following reasons, the Court tentatively disagrees as to
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 13 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 13 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

the evidence of the alias itself but tentatively agrees as to evidence regarding the
purpose of the alias (i. e., Defendant's participation in the furry community).
1. Propensity Evidence
Under Rule 404(b)(1), "[e]vidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not
admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular
occasion the person acted in accordance with that character. " But the "evidence
may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity,
intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of
accident. " Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
Contrary to Defendant's assertion, the Government is not offering the alias
evidence to establish propensity (i. e., to show that, because Defendant is
involved in the furry community under a particular alias, he likely possessed child
pornography). See Resp. 5, ECF No. 54. Instead, as shown below, the
evidence tends to prove Defendant's "identity" as the possessor of the images
found on the gaming computer (Counts 11-1V), which is an acceptable purpose
under Rule 404(b). The rule against propensity evidence thus does not bar
admission here.
2. Relevance
Defendant next disputes the evidence's relevance to identity, arguing that it
should be excluded under Rule 402. See Resp. 5-6, ECF No. 54.
Relevant evidence is typically admissible, and irrelevant evidence is
inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402. The threshold for relevancy is low. See
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 14 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 14 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Fed. R. Evid. 401 ("Evidence is relevant if... it has any tendency to make a fact
more or less probable than it would be without the evidence .... " (emphasis
added)); United States v. Whittington, 455 F. 3d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 2006) ("The
standard for relevancy is extremely liberal. " (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)).
Here, that low bar is met. Some of the images at issue in the Indictment
were found on a gaming computer located in the house in which Defendant lives
with his father and to which they both seemingly had access during the relevant
time. Notice 4, 11, ECF No. 34. The gaming computer utilized a Windows
operating system, the full username for which was "Kaji Taiki. " Id. at 18-20. "Kaji
Taiki" is a name that Defendant previously utilized when participating in the furry
community. Id. The fact that Defendant has previously used the unique alias
associated with the Windows account containing the charged images makes it
more likely than it would be without that evidence that Defendant-rather than
someone else-controlled the account and possessed those images. E. g.,
Trepanier, 576 F. App'x at 535. Evidence that Defendant previously used the
alias "Kaji Taiki" thus tends to identify Defendant as the possessor of the images
at issue in Counts 11-IV of this Indictment and, simultaneously, tends to refute
any potential "it wasn't me" defense. It is therefore relevant under Rule 401 and
will not be excluded under Rule 402.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 15 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 15 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3. Balancing Test
Last, Defendant argues that, even if there is a purpose other than
propensity for the evidence, and even if the evidence is relevant to that
admissible purpose, it should nonetheless be excluded under Rule 403's
balancing test.
To this end, Defendant argues that the Government can link Defendant to
the gaming computer involved in these crimes by means other than the alias
evidence. Resp. 10, ECF No. 54. Therefore, he contends, the reference to his
involvement in the furry community "seems to have been made by the
Government only ... in the hopes of adding another salacious, unnecessary, and
prejudicial detail from [Defendant's] past for the jury to hear. " Id.
At this stage, the Court must separate evidence that Defendant previously
used the alias "Kaji Taiki" from evidence that he did so for purposes of
participating in the furry community. As to the alias itself, the evidence is not
unduly prejudicial. Standing alone, there is nothing inherently salacious about
having previously used the alias, nor does evidence of prior usage of an alias
suggest that the jury would render a decision on an improper basis.
The alias itself is also not cumulative. This is especially true given that
neither the Government nor the Court is aware of Defendant's strategy (rightly
so) and thus cannot know whether Defendant intends to dispute identity,
knowledge, both, or neither. Given that the identity of the user of the at-issue
gaming computer is central to finding the perpetrator in this case, the
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 Page 16 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 16 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Government's evidence does not cross the threshold to "cumulative" simply
because the Government can also connect Defendant to the gaming computer in
other ways. This is not an instance where the additional evidence tips the scale
towards cumulativeness. The Court thus GRANTS the Government's motion to
admit the alias and DENIES Defendant's motion to exclude the same.6
But Defendant's relationship to the furry community might be another
matter. The Court is hard pressed to ascertain any additional relevance that
could be gleaned from the fact that Defendant's username was due to his
involvement in the furry community. For example, it is not immediately apparent
that his involvement in the furry community had anything to do with the indicted
crimes or even provides any background to the same. What seems to matter is
that Defendant is connected to the alias, not why he is connected to the alias.
Although reasonable minds could differ as to whether one's status as being
involved the furry community is "salacious, " the Court finds some force to
Defendant's prejudice argument.
The Court therefore encourages Defendant and the Government to
stipulate that Defendant has used the alias "Kaji Taiki" in other contexts such that
the Government need not introduce evidence of the same. In the event the
parties cannot agree to either a stipulation or a manner of introducing the alias
evidence without discussing Defendant's involvement in the furry community,
6 This ruling would likely change if the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss
Counts 11-IV, as the alias seems to be relevant only to those counts.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 17 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 17 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

they shall so inform the Court. At that point, the Court will hear any further
argument from the Government as to why such "furry" evidence is relevant and
not unduly prejudicial. 7 Until then, the Court TENTATIVELY DENIES the portion
of the Government's motion relating to Defendant's participation in the furry
community and TENTATIVELY GRANTS Defendant's motion to exclude the
same.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court: (1) TENTATIVELY DENIES the
Government's motion to introduce evidence of Defendant's involvement in the
furry community and TENTATIVELY GRANTS Defendant's motion to exclude the
same; (2) GRANTS the Government's motion to introduce evidence of
Defendant's prior use of the alias "Kaji Taiki" and DENIES Defendant's motion to
exclude the same; (3) TENTATIVELY GRANTS the Government's motion to
introduce the other six categories of 404(b) evidence; (4) DENIES Defendant's
motion to bifurcate the trial; and (5) GRANTS the Government's motion to admit
the 2019 Convictions evidence. Regarding the scope of (5), the Court
TENTATIVELY GRANTS Defendant's request to exclude the additional
information about his parole status and registration requirement and
TENTATIVELY DENIES any request by the Government to admit the same. The
7 For example, to the extent Defendant intends to dispute his prior use of the alias,
perhaps additional context concerning the alleged purpose of the alias becomes
relevant.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 18 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 18 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>

\
Court also TENTATIVELY DENIES Defendant's request to limit evidence of the
2019 Convictions to a stipulation regarding the convictions. The Court
RESERVES RULING as to determining the remainder of the permissible scope
of that evidence. The Government is DIRECTED to inform the Court by
December 1, 2025, whether it intends to offer the 2019 Convictions evidence in
connection with Counts 11-1V.
IT SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael H. Watson
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 19 of 19
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 61 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 19 of 19 PAGEID #: <pageID>