United States v. Cameron
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4721
D. Me.2011Background
- Cameron was convicted at a jury-waived six-day trial of thirteen federal child pornography counts.
- Post-trial motions argued Sixth Amendment confrontation, improper admission of digital images, unlawful warrantless seizure, improper venue, lack of jurisdiction, and improper expert testimony.
- Yahoo! and other ISPs stored images traced to Cameron; Yahoo! search and NCMEC referrals led to seizure of four home computers.
- Government offered ISP and server-origin images as evidence tying Cameron to screen names and accounts.
- Court concluded digital images were admissible as non-hearsay/substantive evidence linked to Cameron, not hearsay under Jackson.
- Court rejected Cameron’s Fourth Amendment agency argument, upheld venue/jurisdiction, and found some images depicted minors despite limited expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation and admission of images | Cameron argues Yahoo/ISP agents are necessary witnesses under confrontation clause. | Cameron contends 당 images are hearsay via Jackson and require cross-examination of searchers. | Images not hearsay; no Sixth Amendment violation; authentication sufficient. |
| Application of Jackson to images vs. website postings | Jackson should bar ISP-origin statements as business records lacking proper authentication. | Jackson is distinguishable because images, not website postings, are at issue. | Jackson does not control images; images are admissible as substantive evidence. |
| Authentication under Rule 901 / 803(6) | The government failed to authenticate the ISP searchers and records. | Yahoo and Google witnesses sufficiently authenticated the records; 803(6) applies. | Rule 901/803(6) authentication satisfied; images properly admitted. |
| Expert age testimony sufficiency | Expert could not confirm all images depicted under-18; new trial required. | First Circuit/other authorities permit fact-finder to determine age without expert testimony in some cases. | Government proved some counts beyond a reasonable doubt; expert testimony not always required. |
| Venue and jurisdiction | Venue/Jurisdiction inadequate for Counts 12 and 13. | Venue and jurisdiction supported by evidence of interstate transport and acts in Maine. | Venue and jurisdiction proper; interstate acts connected to Maine establish jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633 (7th Cir.2000) (web postings not business records; not authentic hearsay)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2009) (business records are generally non-testimonial; confrontation clause limited)
- Wallace Motor Sales, Inc. v. American Motors Sales Corp., 129 S. Ct. 2532 (U.S. 1999) (authentication does not require live custodian for chain-of-custody; gaps affect weight not admissibility)
- United States v. Holmquist, 36 F.3d 154 (1st Cir.1994) (reasonable likelihood standard for authentication; not proving beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Pacheco, 475 F.3d 434 (1st Cir.2007) (government not required to produce expert age testimony when images suffice for proof)