| 8th Circuit Court of Appeals |
|
Reminder: These case digests are provided for informational purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice. Anyone conducting legal research on a particular topic or in a specific jurisdiction is advised to supplement these materials with their own efforts or those of a qualified attorney whom they have hired for that purpose.2011United States v. Harmer, No. 10-1624 (8th Cir. 1-7-2011) -- Judgment Affirmed -- Defendant was prosecuted for possession of child pornography following a search of his home and personal computer revealed hundreds of child pornography files. The affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant stated that investigators had traced a shared file to defendant's computer. The shared file contain an offer to distribute hundreds of files, including sixteen contained in the known child pornography list of the Internet Crimes Against Children task force. Defendant moved to suppress the search, arguing that there was no probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. The District Court denied the motion and defendant then entered an unconditional guilty plea. The Court of Appeals held that because the defendant's guilty plea was unconditional, he had forfeited the right to contest the lower court's ruling on the motion to suppress. The judgment was affirmed.2010U.S. v. Foster, No. 10-1122 (8th Cir. 10-20-2010) — Defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography. He appealed, alleging that the District Court erred by allowing the government to introduce evidence intended to show that Defendant physically and sexually abused his wife, and that Defendant's wife exhibited characteristics consistent with those of a battered woman. Defendant alleged that such evidence was irrelevant to the charge of possession of child pornography and was unduly prejudicial. The Government respondeded that the evidence was necessary to rebut Defendant's claim that his wife's testimony regarding his possession of child pornography had been coerced by police, as well as Defendant's assertion that any child pornography on the computers was there due to his wife's "fetish." The Court rejected Defendant's appeal, concluding that the evidence offered by the Government was relevant for the reasons stated. Moreover, the Court said, there was no indication that the Defendant suffered any prejudice as a result of the admission of the evidence; "the case against Mr. Foster was so overwhelming," the Court said, "that we can't think that there is the remotest chance that he would not have been convicted had the evidence that he complains about not been admitted."U.S. v. Durham, No. 09-2951 (8th Cir. 8-26-2010) -- Defendant pled guilty to one count of knowingly receiving child pornography transported through interstate commerce, and was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment. He appealed his sentence, arguing that the District Court improperly applied a two-level enhancement and imposed unreasonable conditions for his subsequent supervised release. Defendant came to the attention of law enforcement when his IP address was identified as offering files associated with child pornography through LimeWire. No files were actually downloaded from defendant's computer. During a subsequent search of defendant's computer, no child pornography files were found, nor was there any evidence that any child pornography files had actually been uploaded. At sentencing, the District Court applied a two-level enhancement for intent to distribute based on defendant's use of the LimeWire program, despite a lack of evidence that defendant knew that others could access files he downloaded through LimeWire. The Court of Appeals conducted a thorough review of its cases regarding distribution enhancements in peer-to-peer cases and noted that use of a peer-to-peer program like LimeWire can certainly support a distribution enhancement. However, in this case, the Court of Appeals noted that the defendant did not install the software and that the government did not present evidence that defendant was a sophisticated user of the program. By a 2-1 vote, the Court vacated the use of the enhancement and remanded the case for resentencing. By a separate 2-1 vote, the Court affirmed the District Court's order that defendant obtain approval from his probation office before accessing the Internet; however, all three judges agreed that the District Court's written order, which required prior approval for any "device with internet capabilities," was unnecessarily broad and should be rewritten. U.S. v. Buesing, No. 09-3469 (8th Cir. 8-12-2010) -- Defendant pled guilty to one count of possessing and one count of distributing child pornography following an investigation of LimeWire file sharing from an IP address traced to defendant. The Sentencing Guidelines recommended a sentence of between 210 and 262 months; the District Court chose to sentence defendant to two concurrent 120-month sentences. Defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. The Court of Appeals held that there was ample justification for the sentence, including "the size, scope, and nature of [defendant's] child pornography collection," and affirmed the sentence. U.S. v. Finley, No. 09-3159 (8th Cir. 7-16-2010) -- Defendant pled guilty to receipt, possession, and distribution child pornography. On appeal, he challenged the District Court's refusal to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant on the grounds that the warrant allegedly contained false information. Specifically, defendant argued that the investigating ICAC task force member actually downloaded contraband from defendant's IP address two days after the period for which information was requested from defendant's ISP. Defendant argued that the officer seeking the search warrant should have known that the investigator's information was false. A magistrate granted defendant a Franks hearing to give him an opportunity to demonstrate deliberate or reckless falsity on the part of the investigator and officer, and concluded that he failed to do so. The District Court agreed, and noted that even if the magistrate was incorrect, the officer applying for the search warrant could invoke the good faith exception of U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). The Court of Appeals upheld the factual determination and did not reach the Leon discussion, although it suggested that a finding of a Franks violation would in fact preclude application of Leon. |
Please Donate
If you find the resources on this site interesting, or if they have saved you and your client time and money, please support CFD with a donation.
