United States v. Max Budziak
697 F.3d 1105
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- FBI downloaded child pornography from Budziak’s IP address in June 2007 using EP2P, an FBI-enhanced file-sharing program.
- EP2P is described as a version of LimeWire; it purportedly allows the FBI to download complete files from a single user and view files a user makes available for download.
- A July 14, 2007 search of Budziak’s home found LimeWire installed with a shared folder containing child pornography and other files later linked to the downloaded images; LimeWire’s default settings permit sharing.
- An indictment issued April 30, 2008 charged Budziak with two counts of distribution and one count of possession of child pornography.
- Budziak moved to suppress, the district court denied the motion and also denied multiple discovery requests concerning EP2P; after trial the conviction on all counts stood.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for a ruling on whether discovery of EP2P materials could have altered the verdict; otherwise, the court affirmed the other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of distribution? | Budziak argues passive possession in a shared folder is not distribution. | Budziak contends no affirmative transfer occurred via distribution. | Sufficient: sharing in a shared folder with others downloading supports distribution |
| Was the distribution instruction plain error for not requiring personal affirmative steps? | Budziak did not object; argues error should be reviewed plainly. | District instruction adequate and aligns with Shaffer. | Not plain error; instruction comported with controlling authority |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion denying a new trial for juror misconduct? | Budziak claimed juror misconduct based on deliberations involving computer expertise. | No systemic prejudice shown and Rule 606(b) limits apply. | No abuse of discretion; ruling within permissible discretion |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion denying discovery on EP2P? | EP2P materials were material and could affect defense strategy; discovery warranted. | Discovery unnecessary; logs were sufficient; EP2P materials not helpful. | Abuse of discretion; remand to determine if discovery could have altered outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chiaradio, 684 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2012) (upholds distribution where defendant maintained files in shared folder and knew others could download)
- United States v. Shaffer, 472 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2007) (distribution includes leaving materials accessible to others via file sharing)
- United States v. Collins, 642 F.3d 654 (8th Cir. 2011) (knowledge about computer and sharing supports distribution finding)
- United States v. Stever, 603 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2010) ( Rule 16 materiality standard and defense access to information)
- United States v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2003) (importance of discovery to assess reliability of evidence and cross-examination)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419 (9th Cir. 2011) (discusses standards for instruction and error review in distribution context)