Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-01054/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-01054-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JEFFREY OLEN COCHRAN, #275739, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CASE NO. 1:12-cv-1054-WHA 

 ) 

KIM TOBIAS THOMAS, et al., ) (WO) 

 ) 

 Respondents. ) 

ORDER

 This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #21) 

and the Petitioner’s Objections thereto (Doc. #22). Following an independent evaluation and de 

novo review of the file in this case, the court finds as follows: 

 Cochran was convicted of, among other things, possession of obscene material containing 

a visual depiction of a person under 17 years of age engaged in an obscene act, a violation of 

§13A-12-192(b), Ala. Code 1975. In state court, he claimed that § 13A-12-192(b) is 

unconstitutional as applied to him. He argued that the photograph forming the basis of his 

conviction depicted noncriminal consensual sexual conduct because C.K. (the minor in the 

photograph) was 16 years old at the time the photograph was taken and 16 years is the age when 

a person is capable of sexual consent under Alabama law 

 Cochran specifically argued that his possession of the photograph was protected by the 

Due Process Clause. He based his argument on Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which 

held that a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain 

Case 1:12-cv-01054-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 3
intimate sexual conduct violated the persons’ liberty interests protected by the Due Process 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

 The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Cochran’s claim, relying in part on the 

reasoning of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Bach, 400 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 

2005), where an argument very similar to Cochran’s about a similar Minnesota statute was 

rejected by the court. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and the Bach court noted that the 

liberty interest recognized in Lawrence was for adults engaging in consensual sexual relations in 

private, but in this case the defendant engaged in sex with a minor and had the minor pose nude 

for a photograph. The courts found no support in Lawrence to prevent the defendant’s 

prosecution. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals concluded, as did the Eighth Circuit in 

Bach, that Lawrence is inapplicable to defendants in Cochran’s situation and that the legislative 

choice to proscribe the possession of a visual depiction of a person under the age of 17 years 

engaged in sexual conduct is rationally related to the State’s legitimate interest in protecting 

children and enforcing child-pornography laws. 

 The court agrees with the finding of the Magistrate Judge that Cochran fails to 

demonstrate that the decision of the Alabama state court was contrary to, or an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established federal law or that the state court’s decision was based on an 

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. 

 Therefore, the court finds Petitioner’s objections to be without merit, and they are hereby 

OVERRULED. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is 

hereby 

 ORDERED that this petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.SC. § 2254 is DENIED, 

and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Case 1:12-cv-01054-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 3
 DONE this 17th day of March, 2015. 

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:12-cv-01054-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 3