United States v. Neil Havlik, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6186

Havlik was convicted of receipt and possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4)(B) and sentenced to 144 months with 15 years’ supervised release.
FBI’s undercover program flagged Havlik; USPS mail-based testing led to a solicitation and Havlik’s reply ordering three child pornography videos.
Controlled delivery and a search warrant yielded VHS tapes and other child-pornography materials copied from the Internet via Havlik’s WebTV.
Havlik gave inculpatory statements after Miranda warnings were read post-medical evaluation; prior readings had been interrupted by health concerns.
Grand jury indicted Havlik on three counts; he was acquitted of a witness-tampering count; suppression and entrapment defenses were raised and denied.
On appeal Havlik challenges suppression rulings, voluntariness of waivers/statements, entrapment, and jurisdictional elements; the panel affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Edwards invocation of right to counsel	Havlik clearly invoked counsel twice.	Officers violated Edwards by continuing questioning.	No Edwards violation; statements were admissible.
Voluntariness of Miranda waiver and statements	Waiver and statements were product of coercion.	Police coercion rendered waiver involuntary under Connelly.	Waiver and statements were voluntary; no due-process violation.
Entrapment claim and jury instruction	Government induced the crime via bombardment of emails and predisposition evidence.	Entrapment defense should have been instructed; Government cannot show predisposition only.	No plain error; no entrapment instruction required given lack of inducement and predisposition evidence.
Jurisdictional element – receipt	Receipt requires interstate mailing/transport; tapes were received locally.	Not enough interstate transport occurred to satisfy element.	Sufficient interstate progression; mailing from Indiana to Texas and transport to Arkansas satisfied element.
Jurisdictional element – possession	Internet-Downloaded material transported via interstate channels.	Possession of local copies alone suffices.	Internet is interstate channel; possession of downloaded material satisfies element.

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (clarifies when Edwards rule triggers cessation of questioning)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (ambiguity in invoking right to counsel; no need to cease questioning)
Dormire v. Wilkinson, 249 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2001) (ambiguity in asking to call a lawyer; not unequivocal invocation)
Mueller v. Angelone, 181 F.3d 557 (4th Cir. 1999) (clarifies equivocal statements regarding counsel)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (totality of circumstances for voluntariness of waiver)
Simmons v. Bowersox, 235 F.3d 1124 (8th Cir. 2001) (consideration of multiple officers in voluntariness analysis)
Connelly v. United States, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (standard for coercion-based involuntariness under totality of circumstances)
United States v. Cooke, 675 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 2012) (entrapment burden shifting where predisposition shown)
United States v. Acosta, 421 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional element satisfied by mail/transport in interstate commerce)
United States v. Moore, 916 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1990) (mail-based transmission satisfies receipt element)
United States v. Dornhofer, 859 F.2d 1195 (4th Cir. 1988) (jurisdictional analysis of possession in interstate context)
United States v. Trotter, 478 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2007) (Internet as instrumentality of interstate commerce)
Dormire v. Wilkinson, 249 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2001) (see above (duplicated for emphasis))