United States v. Muhlenbruch, 634 F.3d 987

Muhlenbruch was convicted by jury of knowingly receiving and knowingly possessing child pornography, each in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and § 2252(a)(4)(B), respectively.
Tatiana assisted by arranging a private copy of files from Muhlenbruch's computer, which Klaas downloaded and reported to police as evidence.
Muhlenbruch was questioned at a police station after being told he was not under arrest and was free to leave; the interview lasted about 22 minutes and culminated in a taped confession.
Miranda warnings were not given prior to or during the interview; Muhlenbruch later consented to permit seizure of his computer.
A warrant to search the computer's hard drive was issued after the interview; the search yielded additional child pornography.
Muhlenbruch moved to suppress statements and physical evidence; the district court denied the motions, and a jury convicted on both counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Miranda custody determination at interrogation	Muhlenbruch contends warnings were required.	Muhlenbruch argues non-custodial status so no warnings needed.	Not custody; Miranda warnings not required.
Validity of suppression of private search	Klaas's private search violated Fourth Amendment rights.	Klaas acted as private citizen; not government agent.	Private search not attributable to government; no suppression required.
Voluntariness of consent to search	Consent to search given under police-dominated circumstances.	Consent was involuntary.	Consent voluntary; suppression denied.
Admissibility of videotaped confession under Rule 403	Video confession should be excluded for prejudicial impact.	Video highly probative and not unfairly prejudicial.	Video confession not excluded; probative value outweighs prejudice.
Double Jeopardy bars dual conviction	Receiving and possessing child pornography are distinct offenses.	Possession is not a lesser included offense of receipt; dual conviction permissible.	Convictions violate Double Jeopardy; district court must vacate one and resentence.

LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (non-custodial interrogation after being told not under arrest)
Flores-Sandoval, 474 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2007) (totality-of-circumstances custody test)
Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1985) (possession vs. receipt as lesser included offenses; Ball framework)
Schales, 546 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2008) (possession as lesser-included offense of receipt in child pornography)
Koessel, 706 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1983) (deliberations may involve reviewing admitted testimony or recordings)
Havens, 446 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1980) (cross-examination rights when defendant testifies)