965 F.3d 1252
11th Cir.2020Background
- Deason responded to a Craigslist ad and communicated online with someone he believed to be a 14‑year‑old female (“Amber”), sending multiple pornographic images and links to three explicit videos across several dates in January–February 2016.
- He arranged to meet Amber; an undercover male agent (posing as Amber) executed a sting and later, with other agents, executed a warrant at Deason’s home, recovered his phone, and interviewed him without Miranda warnings.
- During a recorded, non‑custodial interview in Deason’s kitchen, he admitted he believed Amber was 14.
- A grand jury charged Deason with attempted online enticement of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) and six counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1470 for attempted transfer of obscene matter to a minor (one count per date of transmission); a superseding indictment added particulars after Deason initially moved to quash.
- The district court denied suppression; a jury convicted on all counts; Deason appealed, raising Miranda/custody, sufficiency of evidence for the video‑link count, indictment specificity/duplicity, admissibility of screenshots/testimony, and failure to give unanimity instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Deason) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Miranda/custody: whether home interview was custodial so Miranda required | Interview was custodial because of heavy police presence, weapons drawn, daughter held in police car, and coercive interrogation | Not custodial: agents repeatedly told him he was free to leave, interview was in his home, wife asked agents to leave and they did, no handcuffs or formal arrest | Not custodial; Miranda not required; suppression denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for count 7 (three video links): whether jury needed whole videos | Best‑evidence/Miller “taken as a whole” requires admission of entire videos; screenshots/testimony insufficient | Agent’s descriptions plus screenshots adequately conveyed each work “as a whole”; videos could have been admitted if necessary | Evidence sufficient; jury could find two of three videos obscene based on testimony/screenshots |
| Indictment specificity / duplicity of §1470 counts | Counts grouped multiple images/links per day, failing to identify which items were obscene and risking non‑unanimous verdicts / double jeopardy | Superseding indictment cured specificity; Deason withdrew his motion and invited/waived any further attack | Challenge waived/invited by defense conduct; no relief granted |
| Admission of screenshots/testimony; duplicity/unanimity instruction (plain error review) | Failure to object preserved plain error: screenshots/testimony improper under Best Evidence/Rule 1006; counts duplicitous and court should have given unanimity instruction | Issues were unpreserved; even if error, no prejudice—evidence clearly supported at least one obscene item per count | No plain error: defendant failed to show reasonable probability of a different outcome or prejudice; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (Miranda custody inquiry: whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (objective custody test and factors for Miranda analysis)
- United States v. Luna‑Encinas, 603 F.3d 876 (11th Cir. 2010) (not custodial despite initial weapons‑drawn entry)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (three‑part obscenity test; “taken as a whole” requirement)
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) (public sexual conduct not constitutionally protected)
- United States v. Bagnell, 679 F.2d 826 (11th Cir. 1982) (obscenity analysis under Miller)
- Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962) (indictment must contain elements and apprise defendant of charges)
- United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 1997) (duplicity doctrine and risks of multi‑offense counts)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review framework for unpreserved errors)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (prejudice and reasonable‑probability standard for affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Guevara, 894 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2018) (best‑evidence rule principles)
- United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703 (11th Cir. 1998) (narrow scope and purposes of plain‑error rule)