United States v. David James Marmon
674 F. App'x 600
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In early 2014 law‑enforcement P2P monitoring recorded an IP address associated with downloads using child‑pornography search terms (e.g., “PTHC”).
- Investigators obtained a search warrant for Marmon’s Williston, ND residence, examined multiple devices, and seized a desktop and a laptop.
- Marmon admitted to investigators that he had downloaded and viewed child pornography.
- Forensic analysis showed Marmon’s computers had downloaded files matching those recorded by the P2P monitoring; some material was recovered in unallocated disk space consistent with attempted deletion.
- A federal grand jury indicted Marmon for receipt of child‑pornography materials under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and 2252(b)(1); a jury convicted him and the district court sentenced him to the 10‑year mandatory minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for knowing receipt vs. mere possession | Evidence (confession + forensic corroboration) shows knowing receipt | Marmon argued evidence supports only possession, not receipt | Conviction affirmed; confession corroborated by forensic evidence supports knowing receipt (de novo review) |
| Admissibility of files recovered from unallocated disk space | Files in unallocated space were admissible because they resulted from Marmon attempting deletion prior to the warrant | Marmon argued he could not have accessed unallocated space without special tools, so files weren’t properly shown to be his | Admission not an abuse of discretion; evidence established these files came from Marmon’s computers |
| Admission of compiled video excerpts to jury (prejudice under Rule 403) | Compilations were probative and properly admitted for the jury to view | Marmon argued the videos were unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded | No abuse of discretion; inherent disturbing nature alone does not make evidence unfairly prejudicial absent failure to apply Rule 403 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spears, 454 F.3d 830 (8th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Bagola, 796 F.3d 903 (8th Cir.) (confession corroborated by evidence can support conviction)
- United States v. Omar, 786 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Anderson, 783 F.3d 727 (8th Cir.) (reversal for evidentiary error only if it affected substantial rights)
- United States v. Henley, 766 F.3d 893 (8th Cir.) (evidentiary‑error prejudice standard)
- United States v. McCourt, 468 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir.) (disturbing nature of child pornography not alone a Rule 403 bar)
- United States v. Johnson, 463 F.3d 803 (8th Cir.) (Rule 403 excludes ‘‘unfairly prejudicial’’ evidence, not merely harmful evidence)