Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-17-2024
Case Style:
United States of America v. Rajesh Kumar Kapoor
Case Number: 23-CR-158
Judge: Edward M. Chen
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney in San Francisco
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
San Francisco, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.
Rule 413 provides that, “[i]n a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault.” Fed.R.Evid. 413(a). “Sexual assault” is defined as, inter alia, “any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 109A” as well as “an attempt . . . to engage in [such] conduct.” Fed.R.Evid. 413(d). Conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 109A includes sexual abuse (see 18 U.S.C. § 2242) and abusive sexual contact (see 18 U.S.C. § 2244).
See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)(2) (“[Prior bad act] evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, . . . intent, . . . plan, . . . absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”). Although the L.M. incident took place back in 2012, the Ninth Circuit has allowed 404(b) evidence as old as 1213 years. See, e.g., United States v. Torres, 824 Fed.Appx. 467, 469-70 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that defendant's 12-year-old prior conviction was not too remote in time; “this Court in Vo, in concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a thirteen-year-old conviction, recognized that our ‘court has not identified a particular number of years after which past conduct becomes too remote'”); United States v. Estrada, 453 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that “[c]ourts have allowed Rule 404(b) evidence to be admitted where ten years or longer periods of time have passed”; citing Ninth Circuit cases for ten and thirteen years). To the extent Mr. Kapoor asserts Rule 403 as a bar, the analysis above applies.
Outcome: The evidence is admissible against the Defendant.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: