USA v. Thompson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW D. THOMPSON,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-20050-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 22, 2025, the Government filed a Superseding Indictment charging
Defendant with three counts of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2252A(a)(2)(A).1 This matter is now before the Court on the Government’s Motion in Limine
(Doc. 19) and Motion for Hearing 404B & 414 Motion (Doc. 20). The Court held a hearing on
these motions on November 3, 2025, during which it heard oral argument and ruled orally on
both. The Court memorializes its rulings on these motions below.
I. Government’s Motion in Limine
In this motion, the Government requested an order largely reiterating the requirements
already imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Defendant filed no response and raised no
objection at the hearing. Accordingly, the Court granted the Government’s motion in limine.
II. Government’s Rule 404(b) and Rule 414 Motion
In this motion, the Government sought to introduce evidence relating to Defendant’s
prior Louisiana conviction and the present investigation under three alternative theories: res
1 Doc. 30.
Case 2:25-cr-20050-JAR Document 45 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 3

2
gestae, Rule 414, and Rule 404(b). As fully explained on the record at the hearing, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the Government’s motion as follows:
First, the Court granted the Government’s motion to admit the following as res gestae:
• Content and information Defendant made available through his server and
received by the FBI between August 20, 2020, and April 8, 2021, including any
uncharged child pornography.
• Content contained on Defendant’s devices and server seized by the FBI, including
evidence indicative of Defendant possessing child pornography, such as file
structure, file names, and logged activity with child pornography files.
• Attribution data tying the devices and server to Defendant.
• Defendant’s registered sex offender status.
Second, the Court granted the Government’s motion to admit the following under Rule
414:
• Certified conviction records establishing Defendant’s prior Louisiana conviction.
• Testimony relating to items found in Defendant’s car during the investigation
leading to his prior conviction, limited to: (1) two computer hard drives, (2) a
Compaq computer cord, and (3) an HP laptop.
• Testimony from Louisiana law enforcement officers relating to statements
Defendant made to them, limited to his admissions that he (1) engaged in oral sex
with the minor in the Louisiana case, (2) knew the minor’s age, (3) engaged in
online enticement of the minor, including arranging to meet in person, and (4)
produced, possessed, and received child pornography involving the minor.
Third, the Court granted the Government’s motion to admit the following under Rule
404(b):
• Child erotica content Defendant made available through his server and received
by the FBI between August 20, 2020, and April 8, 2021.
• Child erotica content contained on Defendant’s devices and server seized by the
FBI.
Case 2:25-cr-20050-JAR Document 45 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Finally, the Court denied the Government’s motion and excluded the following:
• Testimony and evidence relating to Defendant’s statement to Louisiana law
enforcement that he previously communicated online with two other minors from
Chicago and Canada.
• Testimony concerning the following items Louisiana law enforcement found
during their investigation: (1) the bench seat in the minor’s family van folded
down into a bed, (2) a battery-operated blue vibrator, (3) lubricant, (4) a camera
box, (5) a vibrator box, (6) an empty condom box, and (7) an empty AA-battery
package.
• Transcripts of Defendant’s recorded interviews with Louisiana law enforcement.
The Court noted, however, that if the Government plays recordings of
Defendant’s statements rather than eliciting them through testimony from
Louisiana law enforcement officers, then the transcripts may be used as listening
aids, subject to a limiting instruction that the transcripts themselves are not
evidence.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Government’s Motion in
Limine (Doc. 19) is granted, and the Government’s Motion for Hearing 404B & 414 Motion
(Doc. 20) is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 4, 2025
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cr-20050-JAR Document 45 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 3