United States v. Yarrington
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4637
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Yarrington was convicted by jury of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2).
- A forensic review of his hard drive found 1,336 images of child pornography; about 168 were in subfolders under the Owner profile with other non-pornographic images nearby.
- Widmann copied a folder containing the images to facilitate police access, but did not alter the original images; Smock analyzed only the originals on the hard drive.
- During trial, McConnell, an inmate who cooperated with the government, testified about Yarrington’s statements and views on child pornography; Porter testified (ultimately excluded) about McConnell’s prior statements to Porter.
- Yarrington contested the evidence and moved for acquittal; the district court denied it and later sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 120 months.
- The PSR recommended multiple sentencing enhancements and a Criminal History Category V, which the district court applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Porter testimony to impeach McConnell | Porter impeachment testimony admissible; relevant to credibility of McConnell. | Porter testimony hearsay; not admissible as impeachment under Rule 613(b). | Harmless error; no substantial impact on verdict; otherwise within discretion to exclude. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove possession | Evidence shows knowledge and control via locations and Favorites folder. | Evidence relies on a jailhouse informant with potential credibility issues. | Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could find knowledge and possession beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Double counting for § 2G2.2(b)(2) and § 2G2.2(b)(4) | No impermissible double counting; separate harms addressed by separate enhancements. | Enhancements double count harm because related to same conduct. | No procedural error; enhancements properly applied as addressing distinct harms. |
| Obstruction of justice enhancement under § 3C1.1 | Enhancement improper because it rests solely on testimony disparity with McConnell. | District court independently found perjury based on inconsistent trial testimony and other corroborative factors. | Enhancement upheld; district court's findings supported by the record. |
| Criminal history calculation from 1999 Emmet County conviction | Count should be invalid as conviction occurred without counsel, violating Fifth/Sixth Amendments. | Nichols v. United States permits counting misdemeanor without imprisonment; dissent not controlling. | Count properly included; Nichols controlling; no error in history category. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771 (8th Cir.2009) (evidentiary abuse of discretion; harmless error standard)
- United States v. Ballew, 40 F.3d 936 (8th Cir.1994) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- Lee v. Rapid City Area Sch. Dist. No. 51-4, 981 F.2d 316 (8th Cir.1992) (offer of proof and basis for ruling on excluded evidence)
- United States v. Eagle, 498 F.3d 885 (8th Cir.2007) (Rule 613(b) impeachment framework; not hearsay when used to impeach)
- United States v. Schnapp, 322 F.3d 564 (8th Cir.2003) (extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements; impeachment mechanics)
- United States v. Mashek, 606 F.3d 922 (8th Cir.2010) (perjury standard for obstruction of justice enhancement)
- United States v. Kessler, 321 F.3d 699 (8th Cir.2003) (perjury and obstruction doctrine)
- United States v. Kain, 589 F.3d 945 (8th Cir.2009) (questions of inadvertent versus intentional placement of images)
- United States v. Brown, 311 F.3d 886 (8th Cir.2002) (support for obstruction/credibility findings)
- United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817 (8th Cir.2010) (guideline interpretation; de novo review of application to facts)
- Feemster v. United States, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc: standard for procedural errors in sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonable sentence standard; abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1994) (prior misdemeanor conviction counting for criminal history)
- Barnett v. United States, 574 F.3d 600 (8th Cir.2009) (binding to Supreme Court precedent in sentencing context)