Published opinion, 27 October 2025 · source · PDF · 23 pages
D.P. recalled “little bits” of being in the hospital, “but really it was just hallucination.” D.P. explained “[t]here was a closet that was breathing and spiders crawling from behind it and there was also two kids riding Godzilla.” D.P. said she “controlled the spiders, little ants, all sorts of stuff,” and “[i]t was actually pretty fun until I couldn’t control them.” Appellate Case: 24-7017 Document: 53 Date Filed: 10/27/2025 Page: 3 4 D.P. did not recall telling anyone about the abuse while in the hospital.
With the preceding trial summary in mind, we now turn to Defendant’s appeal. In his opening brief, Defendant acknowledges what is obvious from our reading of the trial transcript, namely that “the [G]overnment’s case hinged on D.P.’s credibility ,” and his “defense was that D.P. made up her allegations.” T o strengthen his case that D.P. was prone to suggestibility and had a propensity to sexual fantasy , Defendant sought to introduce into evidence and raise questions about the four YouTube videos D.P. posted online. Defendant does not argue the v ideos are divisible, i.e., admissible in part, so we treat them as an indivisible unit.
Withorn, 204 F.3d 790, 795 (8th Appellate Case: 24-7017 Document: 53 Date Filed: 10/27/2025 Page: 13 14 Cir. 2000) (“[I]mpeaching the victim’s truthfulness and showing her capability to fabricate a story are not recognized exceptions to Rule 412.” (internal quotations omitted)). But the better explanation, as set forth in the sole Sixth Circuit precedent upon which Kettles relied, is that a prior false accusation of sexual assault is admissible not because it is offered for the purpose of impeachment but because it does not constitute evidence of “other sexual behavior” or “sexual predisposition” within the meaning of Rule 412(a).
D.P. made up her allegations,” (3) “the central issue in this case [was] D.P.’s credibility,” and (4) “this is a case of a false report,” or, as he repeatedly referred to the Government’s case in his own closing, a “false narrative.” Indeed, Defendant concluded his closing argument by admonishing the jury: “Members of the jury, don’t turn Sean Baker’s life into a Gotcha [sic] video.” For Defendant now to claim the Government’s closing argument aimed at reinforcing D.P.’s credibility opened the door to admission of the YouTube video evidence seems to us incredulous.