I know this will be contrary to most opinions here, but I believe the U.S. 10th circuit court of appeals erred. 
The man nor the facts of the pervious incident years ago were never heard nor tried to ascertain their validity, and thus an improper inference was drawn from a unsustainable, never tried or proven past event, as to be considered as fact in a case years later presented today. Because of this, it was a credulity  being offered as evidence of guilt, that should not even been allowed at trial, since the past event years ago and the facts of that event were never tried, nor fully proven in a court of law as to their truthfulness. 

Men are tried on facts known of the case at hand, not "suspicions" of an event years ago that somehow replace facts on the charge at hand in drawing inference of guilt on the charge at hand. Even a previous arrest or conviction for such in the past would be questionable as inference to guilt in the trial on a same similar charge presented years later.