United States v. Dustin Worthey
716 F.3d 1107
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Worthey was convicted in the district court of receiving and possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4)(B).
- An undercover investigation linked an IP address to Worthey’s residence and to an email linked to him, revealing child-pornography files on his FrostWire activity.
- Law enforcement executed a search of Worthey’s residence; multiple computers and a router were seized and examined, revealing a user account linked to Worthey and child-pornography files downloaded via peer-to-peer programs.
- During sentencing, the district court considered evidence of a pattern of sexual abuse of Worthey’s minor stepchildren and various psychological harm reports, applying multiple enhancements.
- Worthey challenged venue, the admissibility of video clips, and the use of videotaped statements at sentencing, while the government sought to prove the pornography distribution and possession.
- The district court imposed a total sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment for the receipt count and 120 months’ for the possession count, to run concurrently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of venue abuse of discretion | Worthey argues the court ignored Rule 18 factors and convenience. | Worthey emphasizes security concerns and witness/family inconvenience. | No abuse of discretion; Rule 18 factors weighed in favor of Little Rock. |
| Sufficiency of evidence (identification and download) | Worthey contends he did not download or identify the files. | The laptop data and inculpatory statements prove download and possession. | Sufficient evidence to identify Worthey and show download/possession. |
| Admission of video clips despite stipulation | McCourt Old Chief argument to exclude or substitute stipulation. | Stipulation not required; limited video clips were admissible under Rule 403. | Video clips properly admitted; Old Chief not controlling; 403 balanced. |
| Five-level enhancement for pattern of sexual abuse | Due process requires clear and convincing evidence for the enhancement. | Preponderance standard applies; evidence supports the enhancement. | Enhancement upheld; no due-process violation; substantial evidence supports it. |
| Reasonableness of sentence | Sentence should reflect range and relative fairness given conduct. | Emphasizes Asperger’s and comparables; argues further downward variance unwarranted. | 180-month sentence affirmed as reasonable and within district court's discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stanko, 528 F.3d 581 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for venue decisions)
- United States v. Wipf, 397 F.3d 677 (8th Cir. 2005) (venue divisions; convenience and administration of justice)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (stipulations and admissibility of prior proofs)
- United States v. McCourt, 468 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2006) (government may publish video clips despite stipulations; 403 analysis)
- United States v. Sewell, 457 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2006) (403 balancing and admissibility of graphic evidence)
- United States v. Becht, 267 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2001) (use of visual evidence and policy considerations)
- United States v. Koch, 625 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 2010) (possession evidence from downloaded files via P2P networks)
- United States v. Stulock, 308 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2002) (possession elements and cache versus permanent memory)
- United States v. Bastian, 603 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2010) (reliability and admissibility of videotaped statements by minor victims)
- United States v. Waller, 689 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for proving sentencing-enhancement facts)
- United States v. Lee, 625 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2010) (due process standard for sentencing fact findings)
- United States v. Spencer, 700 F.3d 317 (8th Cir. 2012) (deference to district court for sentence within guidelines)