Proof that Internet was used to download child pornography does not automatically establish that pornographic images moved across state lines
JURISDICTION/SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE United States v. Schaefer, No. 06-3080, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Sep. 5, 2007)(Kansas). Appeal of convictions for receiving child pornography and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). HELD: In prosecution for possession or receipt of child pornography that has been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate commerce by computer, it cannot be assumed Internet transmission of pornographic images necessarily involved communication across state lines in interstate commerce. Criminal statute’s interstate commerce requirement is jurisdictional and must be proved as element of offense. We hold that the government did not present sufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional nexus of the § 2252(a) provisions at issue. They require a movement between states. The government did not present evidence of such movement; instead, the government only showed that Mr. Schaefer used the Internet. We recognize in many, if not most, situations the use of the Internet will involve the movement of communications or materials between states. But this fact does not suspend the need for evidence of this interstate movement. The government offered insufficient proof of interstate movement in this case.Read the opinion here. |
Comments on "Proof that Internet was used to download child pornography does not automatically establish that pornographic images moved across state lines"
This decision is quite correct. A court much never assume facts not entered into evidence, nor is it the court's job to supply such evidence if it has not been entered by either side. And at present it cannot be taken that anything about the technical workings of the Internet is common knowledge. In fact the opposite should be assumed, that accurate knowledge of that subject is most uncommon.