United States v. James Napier, 787 F.3d 333

Napier was convicted on twelve counts of production, transportation, distribution, and receipt of child pornography involving two victims; the case arose from Napier’s molestation of an 11‑month‑old and a 9‑year‑old, with recordings traded online.
Napier was arrested January 18, 2013; after arrest, the AUSA arranged Napier’s transfer to Hamilton County, where he was interrogated by local police without counsel.
The district court later suppressed evidence obtained during the February 7, 2013 CPD interview, finding the AUSA’s conduct improper but not warranting dismissal.
A superseding twelve‑count indictment (counts 1–9: production; 10: transportation; 11: distribution; 12: receipt) followed, and Napier proceeded to trial with prior state investigations and multi‑jurisdictional email/online activity as key evidence.
Evidence at trial connected Napier’s Ohio conduct to interstate commerce via emails, foreign‑made devices, and cross‑border recipients; Napier’s devices and a Time Warner document were admitted with limiting instructions.
The district court ultimately affirmed Napier’s convictions on all counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor’s conduct merited dismissal of the indictment	Napier: AUSA transfer of Napier to state custody and related actions were conscience shocking.	Government: Conduct was improper but not disgraceful; suppression sufficed, no prejudice.	No dismissal required; suppression and lack of demonstrated prejudice supported conviction integrity.
Sufficiency of interstate commerce nexus	Napier: No proof that interstate commerce connected to all counts.	Government: Email timestamps, foreign-made devices, and cross‑border recipients prove nexus.	Sufficient evidence for nexus; Internet activity and foreign elements satisfied interstate commerce for all counts.
Admissibility of Time Warner doc and devices; Confrontation Clause issue	Napier: Exhibit and device markings violate Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules.	Government: Time Warner doc shows investigation; device markings non‑testimonial.	No Confrontation Clause violation; plain‑error review found no reversible error.
Variance/due process risk on distribution count	Napier: Grand jury evidence differed from trial proof; fatal variance or due process flaw.	Government: No material difference; indictment consistent with trial proof.	No fatal variance or due process violation; indictment and proof aligned.

Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) (due process shocks can warrant reversal in extreme cases)
United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (outrageous government conduct may warrant dismissal in some cases)
Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957) (conduct shocking to fair play may be grounds for remedy)
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (outrageous government conduct discussion in due process context)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements)
Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344 (1990) (use of statements for impeachment unless pivotal to trial)