United States v. Pires
642 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Indictment charged Pires with two counts of attempted receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography; trial followed.
- FBI undercover LimeWire operation traced an IP address to Pires; Mitchell downloaded files suspected of child pornography from that user.
- De Lair obtained a search warrant and, after advising Miranda rights, interviewed Pires; interview not recorded.
- Pires admitted using LimeWire to search with terms like Lolita and young preteen; he described viewing some child pornography videos.
- Two computers were seized; forensic analysis linked two videos to October 21, 2006; Pires’ sister interview occurred later resulting in a voicemail later admitted to by Pires.
- Jury found guilty on one count of attempted receipt and one count of possession; acquitted on the remaining attempted-receipt count; district court sentenced to five years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for knowledge element | Pires argues knowledge of actual contents not proven. | Pires argues lack of proof that he knew the videos depicted real minors. | Evidence supported knowing receipt; could infer knowledge from searches and file titles. |
| Interstate commerce element | Images traveled interstate via Internet; proven by online transmission. | No separate proof of interstate travel beyond download. | Lewis controls; internet transmission suffices to prove interstate commerce. |
| Exclusion of Dr. Ball testimony | Defense theory would be aided by showing lack of motive/mental illness. | Expert testimony is relevant to lack of motive and mental state. | District court did not abuse Rule 403 balancing; exclusion within discretion. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Two misstatements tainted the trial; warrants new trial. | Any errors were harmless or non-prejudicial. | No plain error; most statements were proper inferences; misquotation harmless. |
| Multiplicity of counts | Counts 1 and 2 were multiplicitous; separate transactions not shown. | Multiplicitous counts require election or merger; potential violation. | No multiplicity error; acquittal on count 1 and conviction on count 2 precluded double jeopardy concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 553 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 2008) (Supreme Court reference used) (no First Amendment exoneration for mistaken facts in attempt cases)
- United States v. Bauer, 626 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2010) (knowledge can be shown by belief in contents, not certainty)
- United States v. McNealy, 625 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2010) (relevant to mens rea in child pornography cases)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (knowledge of content not required at moment of download in some statutes)
- United States v. Hilton, 257 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2001) (awareness that files contain child pornography supports knowledge)
- United States v. Wallenfang, 568 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 2009) (lack of motive evidence excluded where matter immaterial to statute)
- United States v. Schaefer, 501 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2007) (precedential contrast on circuit law regarding similar claims)