United States v. Breton
740 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Police investigated Breton after an unrelated computer-hacking inquiry led officers to his home; he hid a shared Sony laptop in the basement before officers entered and later installed wiping software on it.
- Paradis (his then-wife) turned the laptop over to police; forensic review of the laptop revealed ~300 child‑pornography images, including three close-up photos of a young girl identified as the Bretons' daughter ("Minor A").
- Forensics linked Yahoo Messenger folders on the laptop to the username Shadowwind345 (associated with Breton's e‑mail patterns and IP activity at his home) and showed at least one Minor A image had been sent from the laptop; other suggestive file names, chatroom logs, and website activity were found across devices.
- Paradis testified about Breton's statements and texts after she gave the laptop to police; the district court admitted that testimony under a marital‑communications exception for offenses against a spouse's child.
- Breton was convicted by a jury of production (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)), possession (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)), and distribution (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)) of child pornography and sentenced to 340 months imprisonment (on remand the Guidelines range calculation had been 720 months but the judge imposed 340 months).
Issues
| Issue | Breton's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of spousal communications | Marital communications privilege barred Paradis's testimony about Breton's statements/texts | Exception to the privilege applies where the offense is against a child of either spouse; statements related to discovery of crimes against Minor A | Court affirmed: federal common‑law privilege exception covers offenses against a spouse's child and district court did not abuse discretion admitting the statements |
| Admissibility of suggestive file/chat names (no images) | File and chat names were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and confusing absent actual images | Such names are relevant to scienter and course of conduct; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice | Court affirmed: names were relevant to knowledge and not unfairly prejudicial; no abuse of discretion in admission |
| Sufficiency of evidence for production and possession | Forensics inconclusive; Paradis identification unreliable; no proof Breton produced or knew of the files | Multiple circumstantial links: Paradis identifications, forensic timestamps showing sends, username/IP ties, browsing/chat activity, concealment and wiping | Court affirmed: viewing evidence in government’s favor, a rational jury could find Breton produced and knowingly possessed child pornography |
| Sufficiency of evidence for distribution | Forensic methods incomplete; test environment differed from laptop's software versions, so sending could not be established | Forensic analysis of Yahoo Messenger folder structure and file markers can show sent/received status; cross‑examination challenged methods but jury credited agent | Court affirmed: jury could reasonably find distribution beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stefanik, 674 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2012) (standard for viewing facts in sufficiency review)
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) (marital privileges and their exceptions)
- United States v. Allery, 526 F.2d 1362 (8th Cir. 1975) (extending spouse‑offense exception to child of either spouse)
- United States v. White, 974 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1992) (marital communications exception applied where offense against spouse’s child)
- United States v. Rogers, 714 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2013) (use of suggestive web history and filenames to show knowledge of child pornography)
- United States v. Pires, 642 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (search terms and internet activity as circumstantial evidence of knowing possession)
- United States v. Stone, 575 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard of review for substantive reasonableness of sentence)