United States v. Brent Justice
703 F. App'x 345
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Brent Justice was convicted on four counts under 18 U.S.C. § 48 for creating and distributing “animal crush” videos; he appealed convictions (Counts 2–5).
- Case returned to Fifth Circuit after prior opinion in United States v. Richards upholding § 48 as not facially unconstitutional and adopting Miller obscenity limits.
- At bench trial the district court convicted Justice on three creation counts (whitechick, blackluvsample, adammeetseve2) and one distribution count (adammeetseve2); sentences ran concurrently.
- Appeal focused on whether the videos depict "sexual conduct" in a "patently offensive" way as required by Miller to be obscene under § 48.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the videos in their entirety and analyzed whether each video fit Miller’s standards, resolving the appeal on the facts of the specific videos.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Justice) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the videos depict "sexual conduct" in a patently offensive way under Miller | Videos either do not fit Miller’s "plain examples" or sexual content is too brief; prosecution impermissibly targets animal cruelty rather than sexual conduct | Videos depict sexual activity within Miller’s plain examples and are obscene under § 48 | whitechick and adammeetseve2: held obscene under Miller; convictions affirmed |
| Whether depictions must match Miller’s “plain examples” to be prosecutable | § 48 cannot reach conduct outside Miller’s plain examples; conviction invalid if not within examples | § 48 need only conform to Miller’s obscenity framework; plain examples are illustrative but not exclusively required | Court treated plain examples as sufficient for two videos; resolved on facts without deciding broader legal scope |
| Whether brief or simulated sexual acts can sustain obscenity convictions | Brief/simulated conduct insufficient to constitute obscenity | Even simulated or brief acts can be obscene if they portray sexual conduct patently offensively | For blackluvsample, court found it did not portray sexual conduct despite prurient appeal—conviction vacated |
| Appropriate remedy when one of multiple concurrent convictions is invalidated | Vacatur of one count requires resentencing | Concurrent identical sentences mean vacatur of one count need not alter sentence | Court vacated Count 3 (blackluvsample) and rendered judgment of acquittal on that count; affirmed remaining convictions and left sentence intact |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Richards, 755 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2014) (upholding § 48 facially and applying Miller obscenity limits)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (establishing three-part obscenity test and listing "plain examples")
- United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 2005) (endorsing assessment of videotapes in their entirety for obscenity determination)