United States v. Huether, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4957

Huether was convicted by a jury in federal court of receipt (Count One) and possession (Count Two) of materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors, with 240 months and 120 months respectively, to run consecutively to each other and to a 30-year state sentence.
Minot police searched Huether's residence, discovering extensive child pornography on computers and optical discs (about 90 hours of video, 257 images, including duplicates).
A separate Fargo residence search occurred, where Huether consented to the search and was told he was not under arrest; an interview lasting about two hours produced incriminating statements, and no Miranda warnings were given.
Huether filed a motion to suppress the Fargo statements, which the district court denied; he appeals challenging suppression, Confrontation Clause, expert testimony, and double jeopardy rulings.
At trial, federal agents testified about computer forensics and interstate nexus; Huether was convicted on both counts, and the district court imposed consecutive sentences.
The court of appeals affirms some rulings, reverses others, and remands to vacate one conviction and the corresponding sentence due to a double jeopardy issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Miranda custody determination	Huether argues statements were admissible but should have been suppressed under Miranda.	Huether contends he was in custody during the Fargo interview and not free to leave.	No custody; statements admissible.
Confrontation Clause testimony about origin of evidence	Erickson and Helderop testimony repeated non-testifying conclusions about origin to prove jurisdictional elements.	Such testimony violated Confrontation Clause by echoing non-testifying sources.	No plain error; testimony properly admitted.
Expert testimony under Rule 702/704	Erickson opined about how Huether downloaded and stored images; testimony impermissibly vouched for CT's credibility and invoked an ultimate issue.	Expert testimony aided the jury in understanding computer evidence and did not exceed permissible scope.	Admissible; any error harmless.
Double Jeopardy – greater and lesser offenses	Convictions for receipt and possession are permissible; jury could distinguish facts.	Convictions overlap; charging greater and lesser offenses based on same facts violates double jeopardy; instruction flawed.	Plain error; vacate one conviction and corresponding sentence.

Muhlenbruch v. United States, 634 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2011) (custody and suppression review framework; standard of review)
Perrin v. United States, 659 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2011) (illustrates non-custodial/interview dynamics under Miranda)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court 2011) (confrontation rights for out-of-court expert/testimony not to be used to prove jurisdictional facts)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court 2009) (testimonial statements and confrontation considerations for lab-certificates)
Czichray v. United States, 378 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2004) (non-custodial interview in a physician-like setting not automatically custodial)
LeBrun v. United States, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (deceptive interview tactics and non-custodial settings)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain error standard of review)
Koch v. United States, 625 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 2010) (admission of foreign-manufacture labeling to prove interstate commerce element)
Davis v. United States, 457 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2006) (expert testimony assistance to jury on technical issues)