United States v. Chow
760 F. Supp. 2d 335
S.D.N.Y.2010Background
- Defendant Jason Chow pled guilty to possession and receipt of child pornography ( §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2); and related counts).
- The Government sought restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 on behalf of Amy (the Misty series) and Vicky (the Vicky series).
- Plaintiff requests substantial future and past costs, including counseling, lost income, and attorney/expert fees ($3,367,854 for Amy; $2,851.20 for Vicky).
- Court entered judgment on Oct. 5, 2010 but did not order restitution at that time. This decision explains why restitution is denied.
- Amy and Vicky submit evidence of ongoing harm from the abuse depicted in the images and fear of public exposure via the Internet.
- The Court must decide (i) victims status, (ii) proximate-cause requirement, (iii) whether the Government proves proximate-causation, and (iv) the damages amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amy and Vicky are victims under § 2259. | Chow caused harm to victims depicted in images. | Victims must show damages directly tied to Chow's offense. | Yes; Amy and Vicky are victims under § 2259. |
| Whether § 2259 requires proximate causation. | Statute's catchall and case law support proximate-cause requirement. | Some courts have treated causation more loosely or allowed broad recovery. | proximate causation is required. |
| Whether the Government established proximate causation in this case. | Defendant's possession contributed to victims' losses. | Cannot quantify each act of possession as proximate cause of specific losses. | No; the Government did not establish proximate causation for specific damages. |
| Whether any restitution amount can be awarded given lack of proximate causation. | Some courts award partial or nominal restitution for contributory harm. | If causation isn't shown, no restitution should be awarded. | No; without proximate causation, no restitution (not even nominal). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Berk, 666 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D. Me. 2009) (recognizes § 2259 applies to possession of child pornography)
- United States v. Pearson, 570 F.3d 480 (2d Cir. 2009) (remanded for explanation of future-damage calculations; proximity required for proof)
- United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2007) (causation required between offense and victim harm, though exact proof not required)
- United States v. Church, 701 F. Supp. 2d 814 (W.D. Va. 2010) (establishes proximate-cause considerations in § 2259 restitution)
- United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2007) (causation required between offense and victim harm, though exact proof not required)
- United States v. Baxter, 394 Fed. Appx. 377 (9th Cir. 2010) (proximate causation shown by general foreseeability in certain possession cases)