Background
Johnathon Bindues, a former high school girls’ athletic coach in New Mexico, was convicted by a jury in May 2023 of coercing and enticing fourteen-year-old Jane Doe to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and of persuading or enticing Doe to produce child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251. The district court sentenced Bindues to 276 months’ imprisonment followed by ten years of supervised release.
The evidence at trial showed that between September 2020 and June 2021, Bindues and Doe exchanged more than 17,000 text messages containing graphic sexual content and explicit images. Bindues, then thirty years old, used his position as Doe’s basketball and track coach to create opportunities for sexual contact, including arranging a school-affiliated sports trip, convincing Doe to join the track team, and meeting her alone at school. On multiple occasions, Bindues had oral and vaginal sex with Doe. He also repeatedly pressured Doe to send him sexually explicit images and videos, at one point texting “Send nudes” and on another occasion demanding “F*ck a sneak peak! I want more baby.” Doe eventually sent Bindues multiple explicit videos of herself.
The relationship came to light in early July 2021 when Doe’s mother confiscated her cellphone and discovered deleted messages recovered from Doe’s school-issued laptop. Police arrested Bindues on July 17, 2021. At trial, the government presented the explicit images and videos, Doe’s testimony, and expert testimony from FBI Supervisory Special Agent Daniel O’Donnell on the subject of grooming. Bindues called his own expert, forensic psychologist Dr. Simone Viljoen, who testified that there is no consensus on how to define grooming and no reliable way to measure it. The jury convicted on both counts.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth Circuit affirmed Bindues’s convictions, rejecting both of his appellate arguments. Writing for the panel, Judge Eid first addressed Bindues’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to his § 2251 conviction. Reviewing de novo and examining the entire record in the light most favorable to the government, the court held that the record contained overwhelming evidence that Bindues repeatedly asked Doe for sexually explicit images. The court catalogued numerous text messages in which Bindues pressured Doe for explicit photos and videos, including requests for a “sneak peek,” complaints when Doe refused, and explicit demands. The court rejected as “factually and legally frivolous” Bindues’s claim that he did not specifically ask Doe to produce sexually explicit depictions, noting that while “[m]erely asking a minor for a naked photo” may not violate § 2251(a) under certain circumstances, Bindues’s conduct far exceeded any such boundary.
Second, the court upheld the district court’s admission of Agent O’Donnell’s expert testimony on grooming. The court reviewed de novo whether the district court applied the correct legal standard under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and performed its gatekeeper role, then reviewed the application of that standard for abuse of discretion. The court rejected Bindues’s three arguments: (1) that O’Donnell’s testimony lacked reliable principles and methods because it was not based on scientific studies—the court held that expert testimony need not be scientific to be admissible and that O’Donnell’s specialized training and experience leading the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit III qualified him; (2) that the testimony was irrelevant and unhelpful—the court held that it constituted permissible modus operandi testimony that provided jurors a useful vocabulary for assessing the evidence, distinguishing United States v. Flechs, 98 F.4th 1250 (10th Cir. 2024), on the ground that Bindues was charged with completed offenses, not an inchoate offense where grooming itself would be an element; and (3) that the testimony was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403—the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s balancing, particularly where the court permitted Bindues’s own expert to present a contrary theory.
Key Takeaways
- Sufficiency of evidence is reviewed de novo, with the entire record examined in the light most favorable to the government; the Tenth Circuit will not second-guess jury credibility determinations or reweigh evidence.
- Expert testimony on grooming need not be based on scientific methodology to satisfy Rule 702; specialized law enforcement training and experience investigating child sexual exploitation can provide a sufficient foundation.
- Expert testimony describing the stages and behavioral patterns of grooming constitutes permissible modus operandi evidence when offered to help jurors understand how a defendant accomplished the charged offense, not to prove that grooming itself occurred as a legal element.
- Rule 403 sets a low bar for admissibility, and district courts retain considerable discretion in balancing probative value against prejudicial effect; the remedy of exclusion is “extraordinary” and “should be used sparingly.”
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Tenth Circuit’s approach to expert testimony in child sexual exploitation cases, confirming that FBI behavioral analysis experts may testify about grooming patterns as modus operandi evidence even when their models lack predictive or testable scientific rigor. The ruling distinguishes between grooming as a legal element of inchoate offenses under § 2422(b)—where the term carries formal legal significance—and grooming as descriptive evidence of how a defendant completed a § 2251 offense, where it serves to explain the defendant’s conduct to the jury.
The decision also demonstrates the court’s willingness to uphold convictions based on extensive digital evidence, including text messages and explicit images, even where the defendant claims the victim acted unprompted. The court’s detailed recitation of the record evidence serves as a reminder that sufficiency challenges face an uphill battle when the government presents voluminous documentary evidence of a defendant’s repeated requests for explicit material.