As the internet has made it easier for people to share information – from snarky comments about published criminal cases in the federal circuits, to snarky comments about politics or the Academy Awards – it has made trading child pornography much easier.
Twenty years ago, to trade child pornography, you had to use the mail or meet someone with the same interest. Now, just about any person with an internet connection can find this contraband in less than an hour.
The easy flow and production of child pornography is a serious social problem. My concern is that the only solution we seem to be thinking about is to criminalize the market for it and make the punishments for participating in this market draconian.
A Very Large Opinion
The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in United States v. McGarity is a glimpse into the world of child pornography.
Law enforcement learned of a massive online collective of child pornography users. The ring used a sophisticated web of encryption, changing bulletin boards, and membership tests to weed out law enforcement and communicate with each other.
It had leaders – using names such as “Yardbird” “Helen” “Soft” and “Tex” who enforced security and internal discipline. They also decided who was able to join.
After an investigation into the group, fourteen people were arrested. None of the people arrested was a leader in the child pornography ring – though “Helen” was prosecuted in Britain.
The men prosecuted in the United States received sentences ranging from twenty years to fifty years. The leader of the ring, “Helen,” was sentenced in Britain to 12 and a half years.
The court of appeals opinion in McGarity is a massive 130 pages. Much of the case in the district court was affirmed, though there were some defense victories of note.
Obstruction of Justice
All the men charged were also charged with obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c). The superseding indictment, following the language of the statute, accused the men of trying to obstruct an official proceeding. It did not say what that proceeding was.
The Eleventh Circuit held that this was insufficient. Following an opinion from the First Circuit, the court of appeals held that if the government is going to charge obstruction of an official proceeding, it has to say what official proceeding was obstructed.
This is a neat exception to the general rule that a prosecutor has to merely parrot the statute in order to adequately allege an offense. The Eleventh Circuit said that an indictment that doesn’t say what official proceeding was obstructed doesn’t provide enough notice of how the law was broken. This is fair enough – it’s just also true of, say, 75% of the indictments that come out of a federal grand jury.
It’s a step in the right direction at least.
Those convictions were vacated and that count of the superseding indictment was vacated.
CEE Requires Three
Finally, all of the men accused were convicted of a violation of statute that criminalizes participating in a Child Exploitation Enterprise under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g). A CEE charge requires that the jury finds that a person participated in a series of at least three other child pornography offenses.
Yet one of the men accused was convicted of the CEE charge and was only convicted of two underlying child pornography charges. His CEE conviction was vacated.
Conspiracy is a Lesser Included Offense of CEE
Many of the men were also convicted of conspiracy to do things relating to the distribution of child pornography. They were also convicted of the CEE charge. They argued that the conspiracy charge was a lesser included offense of CEE. For that reason, the conspiracy charge should be vacated, under double jeopardy principles. (see this post for a more thorough explanation of the double jeopardy principles involved).
As luck would have it, the guy who had his CEE conviction vacated because he was only convicted of two underlying acts was also convicted of conspiracy. His conspiracy conviction stands.