United States v. Theodore Stewart
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18224
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Stewart was charged in Case No. 09-20415 with transporting child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) based on images found on his two laptops seized at the airport.
- CBP searched one laptop at the airport; another was later searched by ICE/forensic analyst; a warrant was obtained five days after initial seizure.
- A district court denied Stewart’s suppression motion and dismissed the indictment without prejudice due to a Speedy Trial Act violation arising from miscalculated deadlines.
- A new indictment was issued in Case No. 10-20436 charging two counts; exhibits derived from the same images were introduced at trial.
- Stewart challenged rulings on suppression, evidentiary exhibits, and jury instructions; the jury convicted on both counts.
- On appeal, the court addressed the Speedy Trial Act issue, the Fourth Amendment claim, sufficiency of the evidence for count two, admissibility of Exhibits 15 and 16, and the sufficiency of jury instructions regarding an identifiable minor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a Speedy Trial Act violation that warranted dismissal with prejudice? | Stewart: earlier indictment dismissed without prejudice due to SA violation; prejudice to rights. | Stewart: dismissal with prejudice required under SA violation; Tinklenberg tolling denied. | No SA violation; dismissal without prejudice was proper. |
| Whether the airport/ICE searches constituted an extended border search requiring reasonable suspicion? | Stewart: extended border search; off-site search violated Fourth Amendment. | Stewart: no extended border search; continuation of border search was permissible. | Not an extended border search; Fourth Amendment was not violated. |
| Whether the district court properly denied judgment of acquittal on count two for image editing producing lascivious depictions? | Stewart: cropped/brightened images cannot be child pornography; First Amendment protection argued. | Stewart: manipulated images can be child pornography; evidence supports lasciviousness. | Evidence supports count two; no error in denial of acquittal. |
| Whether admission of Exhibits 15 and 16 was plain error? | Stewart: exhibits inflamed jury and violated limits on ‘limited context’ evidence. | Exhibits properly offered to contextualize images and prove knowledge. | No plain error; admission upheld. |
| Whether the district court committed plain error by not sua sponte instructing on ‘identifiable minor’? | Stewart: failure to define identifiable minor prejudiced him. | Instructions adequate as a whole; no error given undisputed facts. | No plain error; no reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tinklenberg, 131 S. Ct. 2007 (Supreme Court 2011) (pretrial motion tolls speed-trial clock automatically)
- Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (Supreme Court 2013) (apply law in effect at decision time)
- United States v. Davist, 481 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2007) (governs dismissal timeliness under speedy-trial framework)
- United States v. Brown, 579 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009) (Dost framework for lasciviousness in child pornography)
- United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159 (2010) (plain-error review standard for jury instructions)