United States v. Wright
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23038
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- FBI undercover sessions on a file-sharing network led to Wright's alleged transportation and possession of child pornography.
- Wright operated a direct client-to-client file transfer to an undercover agent; files were downloaded via Wright's desktop computer in Arizona.
- Dittfurth, Wright's roommate, disappeared about a week after Wright's search, with Wright claiming Dittfurth was responsible for the illicit materials.
- Superseding Indictment charged Wright with ten counts; Wright was convicted of Counts 2 (transportation) and 3 (possession) and acquitted on others, and sentenced to concurrent terms of 121 and 60 months.
- Key legal dispute centered on whether 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) required actual interstate transmission of images and whether internet activity could satisfy the jurisdictional element.
- District court denied Wright’s motion to suppress statements and the 404(b) evidence issue was contested; on appeal the court reversed Count 2 but affirmed Counts 1 and 3 with remand on suppression for factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interstate commerce requirement for §2252A(a)(1) | Government: Internet use can satisfy interstate reach even if images never cross state lines. | Wright: Images must cross state lines; intrastate transmission cannot satisfy §2252A(a)(1). | Actual crossing of state lines required; Count 2 reversed. |
| Sufficiency of knowledge for Counts 2 and 3 | Confessions and corroboration establish Wright knew the files contained child pornography. | Knowledge and possession were not proven for the charged files. | Counts 2 and 3 analyzed; Count 2 reversed due to interstate crossing requirement; Count 3 sustained subject to further proceedings on suppression remand. |
| Motion to suppress statements | District court properly denied suppression; statements voluntary. | Miranda rights and custody issues were improperly handled; lack of factual findings. | Reverse denial of suppression; remand for essential factual findings. |
| Exclusion of 404(b) evidence and prosecutorial conduct | 404(b) evidence and prosecutorial conduct were improperly restricted or misconduct occurred. | Evidentiary rulings and misconduct prejudiced Wright. | Exclusion of 404(b) evidence not plain error; prosecutorial conduct mostly harmless; no automatic reversal. |
| Mid-trial continuance and access to mirrored drive under Adam Walsh Act | Adam Walsh Act requires ample opportunity to inspect mirrored drive; denial prejudiced defense; mid-trial continuance denied. | Defense had ample opportunity; delay unnecessary; mirrored drive access appropriately limited. | Remand on suppression issues; continuance denial not reversible on plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Korab, 893 F.2d 212 (9th Cir. 1989) (requires interstate crossing of threats in extortion context; analogized to need crossing state lines)
- United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2007) (internet presence plus cross-state servers can create interstate nexus)
- United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (whether internet use satisfies interstate reach when images did not cross lines)
- United States v. Lewis, 554 F.3d 208 (1st Cir. 2009) (internet use alone not sufficient where no crossing shown; jurisdictional analysis based on crossing)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (U.S. 2001) (jurisdictional modifiers 'in commerce' vs 'in or affecting commerce' discussed)
- United States v. Nader, 542 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes facility-based interstate commerce interpretation)
- United States v. Smith, 795 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1986) (early treatment of 'in interstate or foreign commerce' language in context of transportation)
- United States v. Schaefer, 501 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2007) (rejects MacEwan's interpretation; supports requiring actual interstate movement)
- United States v. Green, 592 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for sufficiency and statutory interpretation in similar context)