United States v. Knope
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17453
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Knope was convicted of possession of child pornography and attempting to entice a minor; he appeals on suppression, 404(b), and instruction issues.
- In 2008 Knope chatted as ilovethecock83 with Maria, who he believed was a minor, planning a meeting and providing explicit details.
- Police arrested Knope at Walgreens after undercover video/audio of the chat; officers recovered a strap-on, a phone, and condoms.
- A district court denied suppression of post-arrest statements and of a home-computer search; consent to search was obtained.
- Government introduced extensive 404(b) evidence from prior chats and an undercover Alyssa investigation; district court admitted it with no explicit prejudice ruling.
- Knope challenged jury instructions (entrapment, substantial step, etc.); the district court denied these, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppressibility of post-arrest statements and home-search consent | USA argues statements and consent were lawful under Miranda and voluntary. | Knope asserts custodial interrogation and coercive/invalid consent due to misaddress and threats. | Statements and consent admissible; Miranda warnings given; consent voluntary. |
| Admission of other acts evidence under Rule 404(b) | Government contends prior chats show knowledge, intent, and lack of mistake, probative and similar enough. | Knope contends not sufficiently similar or probative and unduly prejudicial without explicit justification. | 404(b) evidence admissible; error deemed harmless despite缺 explicit prejudice ruling. |
| District court’s handling of jury-instruction requests | Government contends pattern instructions suffice; requested theories were redundant or improper. | Knope seeks entrapment, substantial-step, and good-faith instructions not given. | Court did not err in denying instructions; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Abdulla, 294 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2002) (test for whether interrogation is reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
- United States v. Zahursky, 580 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2009) (prior online chats properly admitted under 404(b))
- United States v. Shlater, 85 F.3d 1251 (7th Cir. 1996) (consent to search not an interrogation under Miranda)
- United States v. LaGrone, 43 F.3d 332 (7th Cir. 1994) (consent to search validity when invoked after warnings)
- United States v. Ciesiolka, 614 F.3d 347 (7th Cir. 2010) (need for explicit analysis of prejudice when admitting 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008) (substantial-step instructions and entrapment considerations in attempted offenses)
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1990) (booking questions and administrative concerns generally not interrogation)
- United States v. Edwards, 885 F.2d 377 (7th Cir. 1989) (interrogation and counsel rights during custodial questioning)
- In re United States v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (S. Ct. 1980) (standard for interrogation under Miranda)