United States v. Jeremy Kelley
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11675
8th Cir.2017Background
- In 2015 investigators traced downloads of known child-pornography files on the Ares peer-to-peer network to a Cox IP assigned to Jeremy Kelley’s residence; forensic analysis found 15 child-pornography video files on Kelley’s password‑protected user profile on his home laptop.
- Four charged files (one May 1, three May 5) were located in the Ares "My Shared" and "Recent" folders on the profile Kelley primarily used; Kelley paid for the Ares account.
- Kelley admitted past use of Ares and searching for pornography (including terms like "young teen" and "Vicky") but claimed those searches occurred years earlier and maintained an alibi for May 5 (testimony conflicted and weather data undermined the alibi).
- Kelley suggested family members might have downloaded the files, but presented no evidence others were at the house during the relevant times. He stipulated that the 15 videos were child pornography, some depicting minors under 12.
- A jury convicted Kelley on five counts (receipt and possession of child pornography); the district court sentenced him to concurrent 124‑month terms and imposed a $5,000 special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (18 U.S.C. § 3014) after finding him non‑indigent.
- Kelley appealed, challenging denial of his motion for acquittal (sufficiency), admission of testimony about his adult‑pornography use, and the § 3014 special assessment; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions for receipt/possession | Government: files on Kelley’s password‑protected profile, paid Ares account, descriptive filenames, files in "Shared" and "Recent" folders, plus admissions, permit inference Kelley knowingly received/possessed the files. | Kelley: others had access; automatic program folders could contain downloads without his knowledge; he lacked knowledge the files were child pornography. | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, evidence (stipulation, file locations/titles, account control, admissions) supported knowing receipt/possession. |
| Admission of testimony about Kelley’s use of adult/role‑playing pornography (Rule 403) | Government: testimony linked Kelley to using Ares and searching for relevant terms during the period; probative of knowledge and control. | Kelley: testimony unfairly prejudicial by suggesting propensity to view porn and invited improper inference. | Affirmed — no plain error; testimony was probative, non‑inflammatory, and not unfairly prejudicial. |
| Imposition of $5,000 special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3014 | Government: statute mandates assessment for non‑indigent convicts; court may consider current and future ability to pay; defendant bears burden to prove indigence. | Kelley: appointment of counsel/IFP status shows indigence and precludes § 3014 assessment. | Affirmed — court may consider present finances and future earning ability; district court’s credibility findings and conclusion of non‑indigence were not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wright, 739 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Fang, 844 F.3d 775 (8th Cir.) (deference when evidence supports competing hypotheses)
- United States v. Worthey, 716 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir.) (peer‑to‑peer program files show user download/possession)
- Gander v. Livoti, 250 F.3d 606 (8th Cir.) (stipulation that material is child pornography is conclusive)
- United States v. Acosta, 619 F.3d 956 (8th Cir.) (constructive possession can be established despite others’ access)
- United States v. Grauer, 701 F.3d 318 (8th Cir.) (use of a home computer supports constructive possession)
- United States v. Condon, 720 F.3d 748 (8th Cir.) (definition and analysis of Rule 403 unfair prejudice)
- United States v. Harvey, 991 F.2d 981 (2d Cir.) (example where adult‑pornography descriptions were prejudicial)
- United States v. LaChapelle, 969 F.2d 632 (8th Cir.) (Rule 403 error analysis where graphic evidence was admitted)
- United States v. Dobbins, 807 F.2d 130 (8th Cir.) (special assessment language and collection compared to § 3013)
- United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868 (8th Cir.) (relation of IFP/status for counsel to other indigence analyses)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court) (sixth‑amendment rationale for appointed counsel review)