United States v. Haymond
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4652
10th Cir.2012Background
- Haymond was convicted of knowingly possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) based on seven images found on his computer after a LimeWire undercover investigation.
- An FBI agent used LimeWire to search for child-pornography terms; files were traced to a Tulsa, Oklahoma address where Haymond lived with his mother.
- A search warrant was issued January 16, 2008, and executed January 23, 2008, seizing Haymond’s computer and related materials; Haymond gave a post-search interview admitting pattern of downloading and deleting images.
- Forensic analysis recovered about 60,000 files; roughly seventy were believed to be child pornography, including the seven charged images.
- Expert testimony linked the seven charged images to known victims and to the Brad and Bry series originally produced around 2000 in Florida; other evidence included LimeWire files connected to Haymond.
- Haymond challenged suppression of the warrant and argued the evidence was insufficient to prove knowledge of the images, knowledge of their content, and interstate commerce connection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for knowing possession | Haymond knew and controlled the charged images by downloading them. | There was no proof he knew the specific images existed or that he had access/control over them. | Sufficient evidence Haymond knew and controlled the charged images. |
| Knowledge of minor depiction | Haymond knew the images depicted minors deriving from LimeWire searches. | No direct proof he knew the content of the specific images. | Knowledge inferred from use of child-pornography search terms; sufficient to show depiction of minors. |
| Interstate commerce element | Images originated in Florida and were found in Oklahoma; content crossed state lines. | Question whether this proves the interstate element for § 2252(a)(4)(B). | Substantive content cross-state evidence met the interstate commerce element. |
| Motion to suppress | Affidavit established probable cause; information not stale. | LimeWire information was stale and insufficient. | Probable cause properly supported; denial of suppression affirmed. |
| Admissibility of Dr. Passmore expert testimony | Expert age determinations aided the jury. | Daubert standard not satisfied for Tanner Staging. | Harmless error; evidence independently supported conviction; admission deemed harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (knowingly extends to age of performers in possession context)
- United States v. Dobbs, 629 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2011) (knowledge requirement for possession may be inferred from downloading)
- United States v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720 (11th Cir. 2010) (knowing possession requiring knowledge of content)
- United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1997) (knowledge requirement for knowing receipt applies to possession context)
- United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008) (staleness and prob. cause evaluation in online child-pornography cases)
- United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 (10th Cir. 2005) (context for lay vs expert age determinations in child pornography cases)
- United States v. Sturm, 672 F.3d 891 (10th Cir. 2012) (interstate commerce element satisfied by substantive content origin evidence)
- United States v. Pires, 642 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (deliberate use of search terms can show knowledge of imagery content)
- Katz v. United States, 178 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 1999) (age determination in child pornography cases sometimes non-expert)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony)