United States v. Michalik
5f4th583
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background
- HSI traced downloads from the “Amateur Lovers” website to an IP address associated with Michalik’s home and executed a search warrant there.
- Agents intercepted Michalik as he left for work, spoke with him in a vehicle for ~45–60 minutes, and (according to agents) told him he was not under arrest and was free to leave.
- Agents say Michalik admitted viewing child pornography on his work laptop, recognized images shown to him, then drove to his office and signed a written consent to search his laptop; child‑pornography files were found.
- Michalik contended he was coerced (told he would be arrested or that agents already had a warrant) and that consent was not knowing; he does not dispute signing the consent form.
- The district court credited the agents’ testimony, denied suppression of statements and laptop evidence, admitted a late forensic report (Exhibit 6B) and related testimony, and a jury convicted Michalik under 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(B).
- On appeal Michalik challenged the Miranda/custody ruling, voluntariness of consent, several evidentiary rulings, and sufficiency of the evidence; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the car interview was custodial requiring Miranda warnings | Agents: interview was noncustodial (public street, agents told him he was free to leave, no handcuffs) | Michalik: one‑hour interview with multiple armed agents and escort constituted custody | Not custodial; totality of factors (location, demeanor, lack of physical restraint, agents’ statements) supports district court credibility findings |
| Whether consent to search the office laptop was voluntary | Government: consent was voluntary (agents repeatedly said cooperation was optional, defendant cooperative, signed consent form) | Michalik: consent coerced (threatened with arrest, told agents had a warrant, not informed what he signed) | Consent voluntary; court found agents credible on coercion and defendant’s awareness and cooperation |
| Whether admitting late forensic report (Exhibit 6B) and analyst testimony was improper | Government: report was created in response to defense argument at trial, court granted two‑day recess so defense could review; no bad faith | Michalik: late disclosure prejudiced defense; analyst testified without expert qualification; exhibit was a Rule 1006 summary | No abuse of discretion admitting the report; report was forensic (not a Rule 1006 summary); any lay/expert error was harmless given cumulative expert testimony and overwhelming evidence |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove knowing possession of child pornography | Government: agents’ testimony, defendant’s admissions, and forensic evidence show defendant knowingly possessed the images | Michalik: others had access to laptop (coworkers, family), so knowledge not proved beyond reasonable doubt | Sufficient evidence: reasonable juror could credit agents’ testimony and find Michalik knowingly possessed the images |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nelson, 990 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 2021) (Miranda custodial‑interrogation framework)
- United States v. Wright, 777 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2015) (custody factors and objective test)
- United States v. Rounds, 749 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2014) (consent as Fourth Amendment exception)
- United States v. Glenn, 931 F.3d 424 (5th Cir. 2019) (factors for voluntariness of consent)
- United States v. Swenson, 894 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2018) (district court discretion in discovery‑sanction decisions)
- United States v. Garrett, 238 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2000) (factors for discovery sanctioning analysis)
- United States v. Lowery, 135 F.3d 957 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard for harmless‑error review)
- United States v. El‑Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011) (cumulative evidence and harmless error)
- United States v. Smith, 739 F.3d 843 (5th Cir. 2014) (elements and sufficiency standard for §2252A possession)