United States v. John Terrell
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22717
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Terrell was convicted of producing child pornography under §2251(a)&(e) and possessing child pornography under §2252A(a)(5)(B).
- ST, the victim, testified that Terrell took photos of her in 2003 while in his care; John Terrell was her father and Terrell’s son.
- Laptops and a floppy disk recovered; ST’s photos and hundreds of other child-porn images were found on devices linked to Terrell.
- John Terrell discovered a laptop with ST images and reported it to police; police conducted a second search.
- Terrell fled the country in 2005, was located in Ecuador in 2010, and returned to face trial.
- The district court sentenced Terrell to concurrent terms of 360 months (Count One) and 120 months (Count Two), and the jury convicted on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge of interstate commerce is required for §2251(a) jurisdiction. | Government argues knowledge of interstate travel is not required for the first jurisdictional hook. | Terrell argues knowledge applies to all three jurisdictional hooks. | No knowledge of interstate nature required for §2251(a) |
| Whether the government must prove Terrell personally transferred the images to the laptop. | Government contends transfer to the laptop need not be by Terrell personally. | Terrell contends he must have transferred the images. | §2251(a) does not require the same person to transfer; sufficient evidence supports transfer by Terrell. |
| Whether the district court properly instructed the jury regarding Count One after Jury Note 3. | Terrell argues misinstruction occurred; the government contends instruction was correct. | Terrell maintains error. | No error in jury instruction given the statute’s interpretation. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence Terrell knowingly possessed child pornography (Count Two). | Government contends constructive possession shown by laptops, files, and history. | Terrell argues lack of direct possession or knowledge. | Sufficient evidence supports construct ive possession; flight and other circumstantial evidence bolster finding. |
| Whether the flight evidence was properly admitted and influential on guilt. | Not necessary to decide as issues favored conviction; flight properly considered as probative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (U.S. 2009) (interprets statutory parsing and knowledge requirements with ordinary usage)
- United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009) (applies common-sense reading to jurisdictional elements)
- United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1984) (no mens rea for federal jurisdictional element under certain statutes)
- United States v. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 2011) (production includes copying images onto a computer)
- United States v. Moreland, 665 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2011) (constructive possession requires additional evidence beyond joint occupancy)
- United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2002) (interstate commerce element satisfied by internet transmission)
- United States v. Winkler, 639 F.3d 692 (5th Cir. 2011) (evidence of accessing child pornography supports knowledge/possession in some contexts)
- Pruitt v. United States, 638 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2011) (jury verdicts can be affirmed where other evidence supports guilt)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless-error analysis for instructional errors)