⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears Steven Scott's appeal following his federal trial in Montana. Prosecutors said that, in twenty twenty-four, he asked an undercover officer posing as a minor for sexually explicit pictures and offered gift cards. A second charge concerned images of a minor from a twenty eighteen Snapchat investigation. The jury convicted him of attempted coercion and enticement, and possession of child pornography. He also had a prior conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. That background makes it important to distinguish direct proof of a charged crime from propensity evidence: using past conduct to suggest someone likely acted the same way again. Rule four-oh-four generally bars that inference, but allows other uses, such as proving identity. Rule four-fourteen creates a specific exception for other child-molestation evidence in cases covered by the rule. It is not a blank check: Rule four-oh-three still allows exclusion when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the evidence's value. Those facts and rules set up the evidence question: which uses are permitted when a prosecution combines these different charges? Finally, a motion in limine asks the judge to exclude evidence before it is presented.

USA v. Scott (No. 26-192) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026.