CHILDPORNOGRAPHYLITIGATION&ADJUDICATIONISSUES:
CHARGINGANDPRE‐TRIAL
PresentationSupplement
CHARGING
DoubleJeopardy?
Nopersonshall“besubjectforthesame
offencetobetwiceputinjeopardyoflifeor
limb.”U.S.CONST.amend.V.Thisprotectsan
accusedfromfacingasecondprosecutionor
multiplepunishmentsforthesameoffense.
SeeJonesv.Thomas,491U.S.376,380‐81
(1989).
Generally,“wherethesameactor
transactionconstitutesaviolationoftwo
distinctstatutoryprovisions,thetesttobe
applieddetermineswhethertherearetwo
offensesoronlyone.Blockburgerv.United
States,284U.S.299,304(1932).Basically,
whethereachprovisionrequiresproofofa
factwhichtheotherdoesnot.”Id.Thefocus
isontheproofnecessarytoestablishthe
statutoryelementsofeachoffense,notthe
actualevidencepresentedattrial.Illinoisv.
Vitale,447U.S.410,416(1980).
Mostcourtsconcludethatadefendant
cannotbechargedwithbothreceivingand
possessingchildpornographyrelatedtothe
sameimagesbecauseitviolatesdouble
jeopardy.Courtsfindthatifapersontakes
“receipt”ofathing,theynecessarilymust
“possess”thething.”Therefore,the“receipt”
chargeincludesalloftheelementsofthe
lesser‐includedoffenseof“possession.”See,
e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Bobb,577F.3d1366,
1375(11thCir.2009);UnitedStatesv.Ehle,
640F.3d689(6thCir.2011).
Thefactthatthetermsofthetwo
sentencesrunconcurrentlydoesnotalter
thisconclusion.UnitedStatesv.Davenport,
519F.3d940,947(9thCir.2008);seealso
Ball,470U.S.at864–65(discussingpotential
adversecollateralconsequencesofsentences
violatingdoublejeopardy,evenifconcurrent,
andconcludingthat“[t]hesecondconviction,
evenifitresultsinnogreatersentence,isan
impermissiblepunishment.”).
However,ifthedefendantischarged
withdistinctoffensesthenthatdoesnot
violatedoublejeopardy.Bobb,577F.3dat
1375.Toprovedistinctoffense,the
governmentmustshowthattheimageswere
storedinseparatematerialsandobtained
throughdifferenttransactions.See,e.g.,
Woerner,709F.3d527(5thCir.2013);
Hinkeldey,626F.3d1010,1014(8thCir.
2010).
“Giventheoverwhelmingnumberof
imagesandmoviesstoredonthecomputers
anddiskettesin[defendant’s]house,itwould
exceedcredulitytoconcludethat[he]...
couldhaveacquired,alltheimagesand
moviesattheverysametime.”Planck,493
F.3d501,506(5thCir.2007)(Wiener,J.,
concurring).
Notethatpossessionofchild
pornographyisnotthelesser‐included
offenseofdistributionofchildpornography.
SeeUnitedStatesv.Chiaradio,684F.3d265,
280(1stCir.2012);UnitedStatesv.Faulds,
612F.3d566,569–71(7thCir.2010);United
Statesv.Woerner,709F.3d527(5thCir.
2013).
MeetingtheElements?
“Distribution”onP2PNetworks
Peer‐to‐peer(“P2P”)networksuse
commonfile‐sharingprogramsandconnect
usersdirectlytoeachother’scomputerhard
drivetosearchforandexchangefilesofall
kinds.
1
Copyright©2013NationalCenterforJusticeandtheRuleofLaw–AllRightsReserved
CHILDPORNOGRAPHYLITIGATION&ADJUDICATIONISSUES:
CHARGINGANDPRE‐TRIAL
PresentationSupplement
CourtsconcludethatsavingfilesinP2P
sharedfoldercountsasdistributionbeause
bydefaultitmakesitavailabletootherP2P
networkusers.
Forexample,inUnitedStatesv.Shaffer,
althoughthedefendantdidnot“actively
push”childpornography,heprovidedaccess
andthisconstituted“distribution.”472F.3d
1219(10thCir.2007).TheTenthCircuit
CourtofAppealscomparedtheP2Pshared
foldertoaself‐servegasstation:
Just because a gas station is self‐
serve, or in the defendant’s
parlance, passive, we do not
doubt for a moment that the gas
stationownerisinthebusinessof
“distributing”...gasoline.So,too,
a reasonable jury could find that
Mr. Shaffer welcomed people to
his computer and was quite
happy to let them take child
pornographyfromit.
InUnitedStatesv.Richardson,the5th
Circuitjustrecentlyagreed,rulingthat
downloadingimagesandvideoscontaining
childpornographyfromaP2Pcomputer
networkandstoringtheminasharedfolder
accessibletootherusersonthenetwork
amountstodistributionunderfederallaw.
No.11‐20773(5thCir.Apr.1,2013);seealso
UnitedStatesv.Carani,492F.3d867(7th
Cir.2007)(rejectingdefendant’sclaimthat
henever“intentionallydistributedCPbche
didnotunderstandwhathissharedfolderon
Kazaadid).
quickly.UnitedStatesv.Romm,455F.3d
990,993n.1(9thCir.2006).
Somecourtsfindthatabsentdirectproof
thatadefendantviewedtheimage,the
presenceofafileinthecacheisnotenough
tomeetthe“knowingreceipt”standard.For
instance,inUnitedStatesv.Kuchinski,the
NinthCircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatthe
defendantdidnotpossess18,000imagesin
cachebecausehehadnoknowledgeofcache
filesandhelackedaccesstoandcontrolover
filesincache.469F.3d853(9thCir.2006);
seealsoUnitedStatesv.Stulock,308F.3d
922(8thCir.2002)(holdingthatthe
defendantdidnotpossessthreeimages
locatedincachefilebecausesimplyviewing
theimageonawebsiteisnotenough);
Peoplev.Kent,19N.Y.3d290(N.Y.Ct.App.
2012)(concludingthatbecausetherewasno
evidencethatdefendantdownloaded,saved,
printed,orotherwisemanipulatedor
controlledtheimage,thecacheevidencewas
insufficienttodemonstrateknowing
possession).
However,mostcourtsdisagree,holding
thatapatternofseekingoutimagessatisfies
theknowledgerequirement.
“Knowing”
•UnitedStatesv.Tucker,305F.2d1193
(10thCir.2002)‐Headmittedtoviewing
butarguedagainstpossessionbecause
heneverdownloadedimages,which
wereautomaticallystoredinhiscache.
Thecourtheldthathepossessedimages
becausehecouldcontrolthem(enlarge,
copy,delete)andimageswereincache
becausehepurposefullyvisitedCPsites.
Doesevidencesavedinthecachemeet
the“knowingreceipt”standard?Cachefiles
arefileskeptbyawebbrowsertoavoid
havingtodownloadthesamematerial
repeatedly;allowsimagestoberedisplayed
•UnitedStatesv.Bass,411F.3d1198(10th
Cir.2005)‐Defendant“knowingly
possessed”CPimagesincache.Despite
hisclaimedlackofknowledge,heused
programstodeleteimagesfrom
2
Copyright©2013NationalCenterforJusticeandtheRuleofLaw–AllRightsReserved
CHILDPORNOGRAPHYLITIGATION&ADJUDICATIONISSUES:
CHARGINGANDPRE‐TRIAL
PresentationSupplement
computer,therefore,thecourtconcluded
thathemusthaveknowntheywere
there!
•UnitedStatesv.Romm,455F.3d990(9th
Cir.2006)‐Defendantknowingly
possessed”imagesofCPincache
becausehehadcontroloverimagesto
enlarge,print,email,orsavethem.
•Commonwealthv.Diodoro,932A.2d132
(Sup.Ct.PA.2007)–UnderPAstatute,
Defendantknowinglyaccessed/viewed
CPsites,butdidnotsaveordownload
images&didnotknowtheyweresaved
tocache.Thecourtheld:Accessingand
viewingCPonwebsiteconstituted
PRE‐TRIAL
Bail
UndertheBailReformAct,ajudgeisto
orderthepretrialreleaseonpersonal
recognizanceoruponexecutionofaspecified
bondamount...unlessthegovernment
demonstratesthatsuchreleasewillnot
reasonablyassuretheappearanceofthe
person...orwillendangerthesafetyofany
otherpersonorthecommunity.
Thegovernmentbearstheburdenof
provingthatthedefendantisaflightriskor
otherwiseposesariskofharmpreventing
releaseor,ifthedefendantistobereleased
pendingtrial,thatcertainconditionsshould
accompanysuchrelease.Wherepublicsafety,
ratherthanflight,isatissue,thegovernment
bearstheburdenofdemonstrating,byclear
andconvincingevidence,thatthespecific
defendantchargedposesadanger.
Ifbailisgranted,thenthejudgemust
determineifanyconditionsaretobe
imposed.UndertheMandatoryPretrial
control;hereachedoutforimageson
sites,openedsites,closedsites;when
viewingimages,hecoulddownload,
print,copy,etc.
•Wardv.State,994So.2d293(Ala.Crim.
App.2007)‐Asanissueoffirst
impression,evidencewassufficientto
showthatdefendantexerciseddominion
andcontroloverthe288imagesofchild
pornographythatwerecontainedin
Internetwebsitesdownloadedby
defendantoncomputerheusedatstate
university,asrequiredtoestablish
constructivepossession.
ReleaseProvisionoftheAdamWalshAct(§
216)mandatedcertainpretrialrelease
conditionswhenapersonischargedwith
certainfederalcrimes.
Thepretrialreleaseconditionsprovision
hasbeenheldfaciallyconstitutionaltodate.
Districtcourtsacrossthecountryhavefound
thecurfewandelectronicmonitoring
provisionstobeappropriateinparticular
childpornographytraffickingcasesinorder
tostemtheriskofflightandensure
communitysafety,suchcasesdemonstrated
setsofcircumstancesexistwhenthe
mandatesoftheprovisionwouldbe
constitutionallyvalid,andprovisiondidnot
deprivechildpornographydefendantsofa
detentionhearingoranindividualized
determinationwhetherdetentionorrelease
wouldbeappropriate.”UnitedStatesv.
Stephens,594F.3d1033(8thCir.2010)
However,thecurfewandelectronic
monitoringprovisionshavebeenheld
3
Copyright©2013NationalCenterforJusticeandtheRuleofLaw–AllRightsReserved
CHILDPORNOGRAPHYLITIGATION&ADJUDICATIONISSUES:
CHARGINGANDPRE‐TRIAL
PresentationSupplement
unconstitutionalinas‐appliedchallenges.See,
e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Karper,847F.Supp.2d
350,362(N.D.N.Y.2011)(rulingthat
conditionsimposedbasedsolelyonspecific
chargesnotsimilarlymandatedforother
offenses,isunconstitutionalasapplied).
Discovery
Electronicdiscoveryissuesfrequently
surfaceinpornographyprosecutionsgiven
thewideuseofcomputerstostoreand
transmitpornographicimages.
UnderFed.R.Crim.Pro.16(d)(1),
generally,acourtcanorderdiscoverydenied,
restricted,ordeferred,ormakeother
appropriateorders:uponmotionandfor
goodcauseshown.However,pursuantto18
U.S.C.§3509(m),anymaterialconstituting
childpornographyunderfederallawshall
remainincustody,careandcontrolofeither
theGovernmentorthecourt(partofAdam
WalshAct2006).
Specificallyin§3509(m)(2)(A)itstates
thatnotwithstandingFed.R.Crim.Pro16,
courtshalldenyanyrequestforanymanner
ofcopyorreproductionofchild
pornography,aslongasGovernmentmakes
thematerial“reasonablyavailable”tothe
defendant.
Materialis“reasonablyavailable”ifthe
governmentprovides“ampleopportunity”for
inspection,viewingandexaminationofthe
materialataGovernmentfacilitytoorbythe
defendant,theattorney,andanydefense
expert.
todatebecause“ampleopportunityfor
inspection”isseenasco‐extensivewithDue
Processrequirements.See,e.g.,Wright,625
F.3d583(9thCir.2010)
Butinrarecircumstances,somecourts
havefoundthat“ampleopportunity”wasnot
providedtothedefendant.See,e.g.,
Knellinger,471F.Supp.2d640(E.D.Va.
2007).
Asafederalstatute,§3509(m)onlybinds
federalcourts,anditdoesnotprecludestate
courtsfromorderingdiscovery.
Forexample,inStatev.Allen,the
TennesseeCourtofAppealsheldthat§
3509(m)didnotapplytoproceedingsin
Tennesseestatecourts,anditfurtherheld
thatthetrialcourt’sprotectiveorder
requiringdisclosurewasreasonableand
appropriate.2009WL348555(Tenn.Ct.
Crim.App.2009);seealsoStatev.Boyd,158
P.3d54(Wash.2007)(concludingthatthe
defendant,whohadbeenchargedwith28
childpornographycrimeswasentitledto
“mirrorimage”ofharddriveandthe
protectivemeasuresputinplacebytrial
courtingrantingcodefendants'discovery
requestwereappropriate);Statev.Bowser,
772N.W.2d666(Wis.2009)(upholdingthe
grantofaprotectiveorder,whichallowedthe
defenseaccesstotheharddriveatastate
facilitybutprohibitedthedefensefrom
obtainingacopyoftheharddrive).
Facialchallengesagainst§3509(m)on
DueProcessgroundshaveuniversallyfailed
4
Copyright©2013NationalCenterforJusticeandtheRuleofLaw–AllRightsReserved
CHILDPORNOGRAPHYLITIGATION&ADJUDICATIONISSUES:
CHARGINGANDPRE‐TRIAL
PresentationSupplement
GuiltyPleas
UnderFed.R.Crim.Pro.11,thecourtis
requiredtoensurethattheaccused
understandstheconsequencesofhisguilty
plea.So,whatisrequiredtoensurethe
accused“understands”theconsequences?
Thecourtisonlyrequiredtoinformthe
defendantofpunitiveanddirect
consequencesofhisplea.Adefendantneed
notbeadvisedofallpossiblecollateral
consequencesofhisplea.
Becausesexoffenderregistrationdoes
notalterthepunishmentitisanon‐punitive
collateralconsequence.Therefore,thecourt
isnotobligatedtoinformadefendantabout
itbeforeacceptingthedefendant’sguilty
plea.
Forinstance,inStatev.Perry,thecourt
notedthatsexoffenderregistrationand
reportingrequirementsdonotneedtobe
explainedatapleaproceedingsincetheyare
remedialandnotpunitiveinnature.2003‐
Ohio‐6344,2003WL22805880(OhioCt.
App.2003);seealsoMagyarv.State,18So.
3d807(Miss.2009)(findingsexoffender
registrationtobeacollateralconsequenceof
aguiltyplea,thusunnecessaryintheplea
colloquy).
However,atrialcourtmayberequiredto
notifydefendantofbothgeneralsexoffender
registrationrequirementsandchildpredator
registrationprovisionsunderstatestatueor
statecourtrules.SeeStatev.Davenport,15
A.3d1154(Conn.App.Ct.2011).
5
Copyright©2013NationalCenterforJusticeandtheRuleofLaw–AllRightsReserved