United States v. Troy Traweek
707 F. App'x 213
5th Cir.2017Background
- In Oct 2013, Homeland Security agents (via info from an undercover Queensland officer) investigated Troy Traweek for sharing on a child‑pornography site; Traweek emailed explicit chats and sent two photos of nude prepubescent girls he identified as his eight‑ and six‑year‑old step‑daughters.
- A warrant search of Traweek’s Texas home uncovered hidden‑camera videos showing Traweek setting up cameras, plus numerous devices containing child pornography: forensic analysis identified 77 video clips and 143 images (converted to 5,918 image equivalents under the Guidelines).
- Traweek stipulated to producing, possessing, and transporting certain videos and stills of the two girls, admitted several exhibits were child pornography, and acknowledged that most downloaded images were child pornography though he disputed relevance of some.
- Traweek waived a jury; a bench trial was held. The district court found some cropped stills from surreptitious bathroom videos depicted lascivious exhibitions of the girls’ genitals and convicted Traweek of two counts of production (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and one count of distribution (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B), (b)(1)); he had earlier pleaded guilty to possession.
- Traweek moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 arguing the cropped images were not sexually explicit or child pornography; the district court denied the motion and entered findings. Traweek appealed the sufficiency of the evidence.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo the denial of the Rule 29 motion, applied clear‑error to factual findings about lasciviousness, and affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence supported the rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cropped still images from hidden‑camera videos of Traweek’s step‑daughters depicted minors engaging in "sexually explicit conduct" under § 2256(8) | Traweek argued the cropped images did not show lascivious exhibition or sexually explicit conduct and thus were protected / not child pornography | Government maintained the images (and videos) showed lascivious exhibition of genitals and satisfied statutory definitions for production and distribution | Court held sufficient evidence the images depicted lascivious genital exhibitions and therefore were child pornography supporting convictions |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Traweek of production under § 2251(a) | Traweek contended insufficient proof that he produced sexually explicit depictions of minors | Government presented stipulations, videos of hidden cameras being set up, and large quantity of images and files linking Traweek to production | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supported production convictions |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Traweek of distribution under § 2252A(a)(2)(B) | Traweek argued distribution element not proved for cropped images | Government relied on stipulations and evidence of sharing/trading and account links | Court affirmed distribution conviction as supported by the record |
| Standard of review for image lasciviousness and sufficiency | Traweek urged reversal based on de novo review of merits | Court applied de novo review to Rule 29 denial and clear‑error to factual lasciviousness findings per precedent | Court applied those standards and found no error; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Steen, 634 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2011) (applies clear‑error review to district court’s factual determination whether an image is a lascivious exhibition of the genitals)
- United States v. Shelton, 325 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2003) (sets standard for upholding convictions after bench trial when supported by substantial evidence)
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (establishes that child pornography is unprotected speech and that sexual abuse need not be affirmatively proven for material to be proscribable)