A recent Eleventh Circuit case presents a myriad of issues. In United States v. Cray, the defendant appealed his convictions of receipt and possession of child pornography. 450 Fed. Appx. 923 (11th Cir. 2012). He had subscribed to a website providing child pornography for $79.99 per month, and law enforcement tracked his actions on the site back to his ISP account. Among his arguments for reversal were:
- An argument that obtaining his IP subscriber information was a violation of the Wiretap Act, and thus suppression of the information was warranted. As the court noted, there is no suppression remedy under the Wiretap Act. (Also, obtaining such information is clearly not a wiretap under ECPA.)
- An expert witness should not have been allowed to testify that "Cray personally operated his laptop to access a child pornography website while in Dover, Delaware." The court found this testimony to be reliable and appropriate although the expert was not personally aware of the act.
- Admission of testimony concerning geographic location of IP addresses was not inadmissible hearsay under plain error review.
- Presentation of videos from the child pornography website to the jury was appropriate despite the fact that the videos were not located on the defendant's computer. They were relevant to show the defendant's "intent to receive and access ... child pornography" and to prove they "were actually child pornography."
- Summary chart matching "filenames found in [defendant's] laptop registry with files accessed on the Website by a subscriber using Cray's name and information" were appropriate for presentation to the jury because the information had already been established, defendant had opportunity to cross-examine, and the court provided limiting instructions to the jury.
Therefore, the trial court decision was affirmed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment