United States v. Figueroa-Lugo
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12378
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Alejandro Figueroa-Lugo was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) for knowingly possessing child pornography; jury convicted after a six-day trial and he was sentenced to 72 months imprisonment plus 8 years supervised release.
- Law enforcement traced heavy LimeWire sharing of files tagged as child pornography to IP address 209.91.206.209, assigned to the Figueroa household; investigators executed a search warrant at the home and seized multiple computers, including a Compaq Presario in Alejandro’s bedroom.
- Forensic examiner found 18 images and 7 videos of child pornography on the Compaq Presario in folders tied to the Alejandro user profile and LimeWire; files were accessible and not deleted at seizure.
- Defense offered evidence that antivirus software might alter access metadata, other household members had access, and that downloads were inadvertent; Alejandro testified he sometimes deleted files he noticed and claimed some items might not be child pornography.
- Prosecution presented expert testimony that the images/videos depicted actual minors and explained LimeWire usage: a user must search and click to download, and partially downloaded files in LimeWire’s "incomplete" folders can still be viewed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendant knowingly possessed child pornography | Govt: evidence (files in Alejandro’s LimeWire folders, user profile, timestamps, experts) supports knowing possession | Figueroa: downloads were inadvertent, AV software or others could have caused files, partially downloaded files were inaccessible | Affirmed: record supports a rational jury finding knowing possession beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether files depicted actual minors | Govt: expert testimony and the images/videos themselves suffice to prove images show real children | Figueroa: govt failed to prove images were of actual children; needed expert proof | Affirmed: experts plus jury view of files adequate; no per se requirement for expert testimony |
| Appropriateness of willful-blindness jury instruction | Govt: instruction proper where defendant claims lack of knowledge and facts suggest deliberate ignorance | Figueroa: instruction allowed conviction on less than "knowing" standard | Affirmed: instruction satisfied Azubike factors and properly allowed willful blindness as a way to establish knowledge |
| Refusal to give § 2252(c) affirmative-defense and inconsistent-mental-state instructions | Figueroa: entitled to instruction on prompt good-faith destruction (if <3 images) and on mental-state inconsistency | Govt: evidence showed >3 items and instructions on "knowingly" covered mental-state issues | Affirmed: court correctly denied §2252(c) (more than two images) and declined redundant inconsistent-mental-state instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marin, 523 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Breton, 740 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (search terms associated with child pornography support knowledge inference)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Pacheco, 475 F.3d 434 (1st Cir.) (prosecution must prove images depict actual children; expert testimony not always required)
- United States v. Azubike, 564 F.3d 59 (1st Cir.) (elements for willful-blindness instruction)
- United States v. Baird, 712 F.3d 623 (1st Cir.) (standards for refusal to give requested instructions)
- United States v. Gamache, 156 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (defense instruction warranted if evidence plausibly supports the theory)
- United States v. White, 506 F.3d 635 (8th Cir.) (possession of more than three images bars §2252(c) affirmative defense)
- United States v. Koch, 625 F.3d 470 (8th Cir.) (usernames and file locations can tie media to a particular user)
- United States v. Salva-Morales, 660 F.3d 72 (1st Cir.) (downloads at odd hours can support inference defendant accessed files)