United States v. Trevin Rounds
749 F.3d 326
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Trevin Rounds was convicted by a jury of possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)) and using interstate commerce to entice/coerce a minor to engage in sexual activity (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)).
- Rounds met a 14-year-old girl ("Jane Doe") via Tagged.com, engaged in a prolonged sexual relationship with her, and transported her between Houston, Odessa, and Eden, Texas; police later discovered an explicit video of Rounds and Jane on his seized iPhone.
- Officers stopped Rounds’s vehicle in Eden on March 17, 2012, obtained consent to search his iPhone, seized a second phone from Jane, and later found the video and messages; cell-site and call/text evidence tied the phone’s movements to March 17 travel.
- At pretrial suppression hearing, the district court found Rounds voluntarily consented to the phone search; the court denied Rounds’s motion to suppress the cellphone evidence.
- The government disclosed a witness (Jane’s godmother, Trahan) and Tagged messages shortly before trial; the court granted short continuances and the defense repeatedly stated it was ready to proceed.
- Rounds appealed five issues: sufficiency of evidence (Count Two), venue, inadequate notice/continuance, Brady violation (undisclosed arrest notes), and suppression ruling. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Rounds) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence as to Count Two (§ 2422(b)) | Evidence (sex video, sexually explicit messages, ongoing sexual relationship, texts/calls) permits a reasonable jury to find Rounds knowingly persuaded/enticed/coerced Jane. | Messages show Jane invited/pleaded for Rounds to retrieve her; he did not coerce or persuade her. | Affirmed — Viewing evidence in government’s favor, a rational jury could find inducement/coercion. |
| Venue (Western District of Texas) | Acts on March 17 (calls/texts to Jane while she was in Odessa in Western District; phone maps) were part of the continuing offense, establishing venue. | Venue improper because key acts occurred elsewhere; Rounds’s presence in Odessa insufficient or contested. | Affirmed — Venue proper based on communications to the minor located in the Western District. |
| Pretrial notice / continuance for Trahan and Exhibit 14 (Tagged messages) | Short delay and one-day continuances were sufficient; admission harmless given other corroborating evidence. | Late disclosure deprived defense of meaningful opportunity to investigate/prep; warranted additional continuance or exclusion. | Affirmed — Trial court acted within discretion; defense repeatedly stated readiness, invited any error. |
| Brady claim for nondisclosure of arrest notes | Notes were either not suppressed or not favorable/material; the government’s failure (if any) did not prejudice defense. | Failure to produce Maritz’s notes (passcode, consent time, juvenile ID) was Brady suppression and material to suppression hearing and trial. | Affirmed — No plain error; notes were not exculpatory or material. |
| Suppression of cellphone evidence (consent) | Officers obtained voluntary, knowing consent to search; district court credibility findings were not clearly erroneous. | Rounds did not consent (or consent was involuntary/coerced) and any search beyond call/text logs exceeded scope; evidence should be suppressed. | Affirmed — District court’s factual findings (voluntary consent) upheld; search exception applied and consent supported admission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence) (establishes that convictions must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Lundy v. United States, 676 F.3d 444 (5th Cir.) (sexually explicit texts can support enticement/inducement under § 2422(b))
- Barlow v. United States, 568 F.3d 215 (5th Cir.) (repeated sexually explicit communications can show enticement and support conviction under § 2422(b))
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
- United States v. Jones, 234 F.3d 234 (5th Cir.) (factors for voluntariness of consent to search)