United States v. McGarity
669 F.3d 1218
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Multi-defendant appeal arising from a multinational child-pornography ring investigation; 14 ring members identified with 7 defendants on appeal; charges include engaging in a child exploitation enterprise (CEE) under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g), conspiracy to advertise/transport/receive/possess child pornography and obstruct an official proceeding, receiving child pornography, and obstructing justice; restitution awarded to one victim ($3,263,758) against Freeman; district court sentenced defendants to life and other terms; appellate court vacated several convictions and restitution as to certain counts; main issues concern constitutionality, sufficiency of indictments, evidentiary and trial errors, unanimity, and sentences; majority affirms some convictions and vacates others, remanding for proceedings; Rule-of-law standards applied include de novo review for constitutionality, sufficiency, and errors, with abuse-of-discretion for evidentiary rulings; Wayerski precedent governs vagueness challenges to § 2252A(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 2252A(g) vagueness | Wayerski supports vagueness defense | Statute vague/overbroad | No vagueness; statute valid as applied |
| Sufficiency of Count One (CEE) | Count One adequately describes three or more incidents in concert | Indictment lacks explicit concert-element and specificity | Count One sufficient under Alvarez-Moreno precedent |
| Sufficiency of Count Forty (obstruction) | Count Forty sufficiently tracks § 1512(c) and provides notice | Indictment lacks factual predicate identifying proceeding | Count Forty insufficient; vacated all convictions under Count Forty |
| Unanimity requirement for CEE predicates | No unanimity instruction required | Unanimity required for predicate offenses | Unanimity required for predicate offenses; majority requires unanimous agreement on which predicate acts count as violations; some convictions vacated accordingly |
| Double Jeopardy / lesser-included offenses | Conspiracy counts not lesser-included; separate offenses | Conspiracy counts are lesser included | Conspiracy convictions vacated as lesser-included where applicable; in White’s case, separate outcome preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir.2010) (vagueness defense under § 2252A(g) rejected; predicates and conduct tied to large ring)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (unanimity required for predicate acts under CCE analog; elements vs. means)
- United States v. Poirier, 321 F.3d 1024 (11th Cir.2003) (common-sense indictment construction; notice sufficiency)
- United States v. Alvarez-Moreno, 874 F.2d 1402 (11th Cir.1989) (predicate offenses need not be charged; evidence of three substantive offenses suffices)
- United States v. Gayle, 967 F.2d 483 (11th Cir.1992) (indictment when tracking statute can suffice for notice)
- United States v. Schmitz, 634 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.2011) (indictment must provide facts to inform specific offense; track of statute insufficient in some contexts)
- United States v. Jordan, 582 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir.2009) (indictment viewed as a whole for notice; common-sense construction)