United States v. Sweeney
887 F.3d 529
1st Cir.2018Background
- FBI undercover agent interacting on GigaTribe identified user "irishrebble" as seeking boys aged ~8–15 and downloaded child‑pornography files; IP traced to 54 Elm St., Worcester, where Neil Sweeney lived.
- Online accounts across platforms linked the "irishrebble" moniker to a Neil Sweeney Yahoo/Facebook profile; GigaTribe password included numbers matching Sweeney’s birthdate.
- Agents executed a warrant at the residence and seized a Dell laptop with thumbnail images of young boys and user accounts including "irishrebble"; Chromebook was damaged.
- Sweeney was arrested, later Mirandized at the station, gave some statements, and eventually requested a lawyer; he was indicted for distribution and possession of child pornography and tried.
- At trial, the government admitted (1) a 1995 stipulation of Sweeney’s prior indecent assault convictions and (2) thumbnail images from the laptop under Fed. R. Evid. 414(a); jury convicted on both counts.
- District court sentenced Sweeney to 204 months (17 years); on appeal the First Circuit affirmed conviction and sentence in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Sweeney) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4th Amendment: suppression of evidence from warrant (overbroad/stale) | Warrant valid; evidence admissible | Warrant overly broad and stale; suppression required | Waived on appeal for untimely motion; no merits review by court |
| 5th/6th Amendment: suppression of statements (Miranda, waiver, request for counsel) | Statements admissible: pre‑Miranda response not interrogation; waiver knowing; counsel request ambiguous until unambiguous assertion | Pre‑Miranda custodial interrogation; waiver involuntary (no glasses); officers continued after request for counsel | Statements admissible: pre‑Miranda remark was voluntary, waiver knowing, officers ceased when counsel unambiguously requested |
| Rule 414(a) evidence: admission of prior conviction and laptop thumbnails | Evidence admissible for propensity and identity; probative value outweighs prejudice | Admission was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 and inflammatory | No abuse of discretion: prior conviction stipulation and limiting instructions proper; thumbnails admissible as relevant circumstantial evidence |
| Aiding & abetting instruction and verdict form | Instruction appropriate given defense theory that others in residence could have committed acts; alternative liability permissible | Instruction improper because government argued principal liability; verdict form should distinguish principal vs aider | Instruction proper: defense made alternate theory; general verdict stands if evidence supports any theory |
| Sentencing: constitutional challenge to mandatory minimums/guideline enhancements | Statute and enhancements rationally related to penalty scheme; no double‑counting prohibition shown | Sentence violates due process / overly harsh; enhancements duplicative | Challenge rejected: legislative scheme rational; no prohibition on challenged double counting; sentence reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda custodial‑interrogation rule)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (invocation of counsel must be unambiguous)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (questioning must cease after invocation of counsel)
- United States v. Crooker, 688 F.3d 1 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Majeroni, 784 F.3d 72 (admission of Rule 414 evidence via stipulation and limiting instruction)
- United States v. Jones, 748 F.3d 64 (Rule 414 and Rule 403 balancing)
- United States v. Blodgett, 872 F.3d 66 (constitutional challenge to mandatory sentencing scheme)
- United States v. Nieves‑Burgos, 62 F.3d 431 (general verdict supported if any charged theory has sufficient evidence)