Adam Stafford King (Photo from Illinois driver’s license)

With the criminal trial of Elburn veterinarian Adam Stafford King fast approaching, prosecutors and King’s defense team are sparring through a flurry of pretrial motions over what can and cannot be entered into evidence against him.  

King, who is accused of distributing child porn via the internet and obstruction of justice for allegedly destroying evidence by deleting material from his cellphone, is scheduled to go on trial May 14 in the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in downtown Chicago. He has been in federal custody since his March 2024 arrest by federal agents. 

The trial is expected to take up to seven days. In a joint filing last week, the government said it expected to take five days to present its case; the defense said it would take one day to present their case.  

So far, the two sides have formally agreed on three things: The internet is an instrument of interstate commerce, the app Telegram is an instrument of interstate commerce used to send texts and photos, and King’s birthdate is Jan. 22, 1985.  

King was indicted on a single child pornography count on March 27, 2024, following a raid on his Elburn home. He was subsequently indicted on a superseding three-count indictment in August, alleging he distributed child pornography and attempted to impede the investigation into his alleged activities by deleting a Telegram app from his cellphone.  

Two weeks ago on April 8, prosecutors filed a second superseding indictment that added a fourth charge against King, that he knowingly received child pornography on his computer.  

On April 9 there were a flurry of motions. Prosecutors notified the court that they intended to introduce what is called “other acts” evidence in their case against King.  

That evidence includes some 8,000 chats using the Scruff application. Prosecutors allege that in

Adam Stafford King as dog show judge. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Department of Justice)

those messages with other Scruff users, King “expresses his sexual interests” and requests their Telegram “handles” and suggests their conversations move to Telegram. In subsequent Telegram chats, prosecutors say, King expresses his sexual interest in prepubescent children.  

In support of their motion prosecutors included multiple pages of transcripts of King’s alleged chats expressing those interests. Unbeknownst to King, he had been communicating with an FBI undercover operative online for months, after the Telegram internet account of the New York man King had first chatted with was taken over and used by the FBI. 

The government argues in its brief that under Federal Rule 404(b), King’s Telegram chats are “relevant evidence.” While such evidence cannot be used to prove a person’s guilt, it may be allowed at trial to establish “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or lack of mistake.” 

Prosecutors say the probative value of such evidence outweighs any risk of prejudicing the jury. They note that while the federal Seventh Circuit court has recognized the prejudicial risk “other acts” evidence poses to defendants, courts have “regularly sustained the admission of such evidence when probative of a defendant’s motive, intent, or other pertinent (and admissible) factor.”  

Among the other acts prosecutors are seeking to have allowed disclosed to the jury are Telegram chats referencing King having child pornography on Telegram, and alleged references to his sexual interest in prepubescent children. 

King’s lawyers are pushing back hard, seeking to have much of the government’s evidence excluded, including what they characterize as “irrelevant chats.” Those electronic messages, they argue, “cover a wide range of subjects, many of which are irrelevant to the counts in the indictment. The chats also cover a number of days outside the indictment.” 

The defense moved to bar chats “regarding alleged sexual conduct with Mr. King’s unborn son, other minors, an alleged collection of child pornography and ‘pervs …’” as being “completely irrelevant.”  

The defense also moved to bar the prosecution from introducing any chats referencing his son, any chats “describing alleged contact or stated desire to have contact with minors or interest in minors.” 

The content of those chats, King’s defense lawyers contend, have no probative value and could be highly prejudicial and “would only inflame the emotions of the jury.” 

The criminal trial of Elburn veterinarian Adam Stafford King is scheduled for May 14 in the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.

The defense also asked that the judge bar any references to King allegedly possessing a collection of child pornography. While King is charged with distribution of child pornography, his lawyers argued, he “is not charged with possession (of child pornography), and therefore these chats have no bearing on any material fact in relation to the charges against Mr. King.”  

To allow in the material they are objecting to, the defense argued, would be to “parade past the jury a litany of potentially prejudicial similar acts that have been … connected to the defendant only by unsubstantiated innuendo.”