USA v. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	No. 24-221
AARON TEROD JOHNSON 	SECTION I
ORDER
Before the Court is the government’s motion1 in limine seeking to exclude
evidence of a minor victim’s other sexual behavior or predisposition pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 412.2 Defendant Aaron Terod Johnson (“Johnson”) filed a
response3 in opposition. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Johnson is charged with three counts: sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) and 1591(b)(2) (Count 1); coercion and enticement of a minor
to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (Count 2); and
interstate transportation of a minor for criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2423(a) (Count 3).
According to the superseding indictment, the minor victim with respect to
these crimes was a then-sixteen year old girl (“Minor Victim”) who had run away from
Monroe, Louisiana, to Vicksburg, Mississippi, some time in or around March 2024.4
Minor Victim remains a minor as of the date of this order.
1 R. Doc. No. 76.
2 Id.
3 R. Doc. No. 101, at 1.
4 See id. at 1.
Case 2:24-cr-00221-LMA-KWR Document 139 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 4

2
The government indicates that it “anticipates, based on [Johnson’s] prior
statements, that [he] may attempt to introduce direct or indirect evidence of Minor
Victim’s 	prior 	or 	subsequent 	sexual 	behavior 	or 	predisposition.”5 	It 	is 	the
government’s position that such evidence is immaterial and unduly prejudicial.6
Likewise, the government argues that admission of such evidence would violate
Federal Rule of Evidence 412.7
In his response, Johnson acknowledges the bar articulated in Rule 412 and
intends to “follow the law as written.”8 Johnson only contests the government’s
motion to the extent that it would limit his ability to use such evidence for
impeachment purposes, should “any unexpected testimony at trial . . . open the door
for impeachment.”9
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
This Court agrees with the government. Federal Rule of Evidence 412,
otherwise known as the “Rape Shield Law,” governs the admissibility of a victim’s
sexual behavior or predisposition in cases involving alleged sexual misconduct, with
limited exception. Fed. R. Evid. 412. In either a civil or criminal proceeding involving
alleged sexual misconduct, Rule 412 prohibits introduction of: “(1) evidence offered to
prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior; or (2) evidence offered to prove
a victim’s sexual predisposition.” Id. The rule, however, also includes exceptions in
5 R. Doc. 76-2, at 1.
6 See id.
7 Id.
8 R. Doc. No. 101, at 1.
9 Id.
Case 2:24-cr-00221-LMA-KWR Document 139 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 4

3
criminal proceedings for certain permissible purposes. Specifically, Rule 412(b)
explains that the court “may admit the following evidence in a criminal trial:”
(A) evidence of specific instances of a victim’s sexual behavior if they are
offered to prove that someone other than the defendant was the source
of semen, injury, or other physical evidence;
(B) evidence of specific instances of a victim’s sexual behavior with
respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct, if offered by the
defendant to prove consent or if offered by the prosecutor; and
(C) 	evidence 	whose 	exclusion 	would 	violate 	the 	defendant’s
constitutional rights.
In the instant case, the government anticipates that Johnson may seek to
introduce or argue that Minor Victim engaged in commercial sex acts in the past, for
the sole purpose of attempting to stigmatize her in front of the jury and vindicate
himself as well as punish her for her testimony.10 This evidence fits squarely within
the kind of evidence categorically excluded by Rule 412(a).
Moreover, as the government contends, none of Rule 412(b)’s exceptions are
triggered here.11 As another section of this Court held in United States v. Jones,12 the
first exception does not apply because “the elements of the charged statutes do not
require a showing of semen, injury, or other physical evidence to the victim.” Cf. id.;
see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) & (b)(2), 2422(b), 2423(a). Likewise, the second
exception does not apply because “the defendant would be barred from the defense of
consent because, by law, underage victims cannot consent to sexual activity.” Id.
10 R. Doc. 76-2, at 4–5.
11 Id. at 3–4.
12 No. 15-174, 2016 WL 10704518, at *5 (E.D. La. Jan. 28, 2016) (Feldman, J).
Case 2:24-cr-00221-LMA-KWR Document 139 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 4

4
With respect to the third exception, the parties seem to agree that exclusion of
this testimony would not “violate [Johnson’s] constitutional rights.” Id. However, to
the extent that Johnson argues that his constitutional rights would be implicated at
trial if he were prohibited from impeaching Minor Victim if she were to perjure herself
regarding such evidence, the Court agrees that such a narrow situation may raise
constitutional concerns. See Virgin Islands v. Jacobs, 634 F. Supp. 933, 940 (D.V.I.
1986) (“Rule 412’s constitutional exception embraces the accused’s right to confront
his victim with impeachment evidence consisting of prior sexual conduct where the
Government first opens the door on this line of cross-examination.”).
For these reasons, the Court grants the government’s motion and bars Johnson
from introducing testimony or evidence of Minor Victim’s other sexual behavior or
predisposition. 	Johnson 	may 	re-urge 	his 	impeachment 	argument 	at 	trial 	by
approaching the bench, should the need arise.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s motion13 in limine is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 7, 2025.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13 R. Doc. No. 76.
Case 2:24-cr-00221-LMA-KWR Document 139 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 4