Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01655/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01655-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Eli Ray
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1655

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Thomas Eli Ray, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2005

Filed: November 22, 2005 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Government charged Thomas Eli Ray with attempting to extort $2.5

million from Best Buy by sending the company emails threatening to exploit a breach

in its computer security. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tracked the emails

back to three different accounts. One of the accounts belonged to Ray, and portions

of three of the email extortion letters were found on Ray’s computer. In his defense

at trial, Ray contended someone had hacked onto his computer and used it to send the

Appellate Case: 05-1655 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977678
*

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

-2-

emails. A jury convicted Ray on two counts of extortion, and the district court*

sentenced him to eighteen months in prison.

On appeal, Ray contends the evidence was insufficient to show he sent the

emails. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude

a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ray was the person who

sent the extortion emails to Best Buy. See United States v. Olguin, No. 05-1710, 2005

WL 2861426, at *2 (8th Cir. Nov. 2, 2005) (standard of review). Indeed, Ray

admitted that he used his computer and logged onto the Internet several times a day,

and that three of the emails sent to Best Buy traced back to the Internet address he was

using on the given day and time the extortion emails were sent. Further, an FBI

computer forensic expert found three of the emails and other incriminating documents

on the hard drive of Ray’s computer. The expert testified the emails and documents

were created by someone typing on that computer, and that someone had logged onto

the Internet from that computer using the screen name and password used to send the

emails. The expert also stated there was no evidence of any type of remote access or

hacking found on Ray’s computer. In addition, the evidence showed Ray had the

knowledge and ability to process the monetary transactions he demanded in the

extortion emails. 

Without identifying specific evidence he sought to introduce, Ray next asserts

the district court should have allowed him to explore the FBI’s efforts to connect the

crimes to two other suspects. Ray was allowed to present evidence of the possibility

that another person hacked into his computer and committed the charged offenses,

however. The material that was not admitted into evidence was hearsay and merely

cumulative. At trial, the other initial suspects, two of whom had been eliminated by

the FBI after brief investigation, were not called to the stand as witnesses by Ray.

Appellate Case: 05-1655 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977678
-3-

Having carefully reviewed the issue, we conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. See United States v. Willis, 277

F.3d 1026, 1033 (8th Cir. 2002). 

Ray also contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the

evidence during his closing argument. To determine whether prosecutorial

misconduct occurred, we consider first whether the prosecutor’s conduct or remarks

were improper. United States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 873 (8th Cir. 2005). If so, we

then consider whether the conduct or remarks prejudicially affected the defendant’s

substantial rights by depriving him of a fair trial. Id. 

Here, Ray asserts the prosecutor improperly argued that two documents found

on his hard drive were created and saved on the computer, and the record only shows

the documents were saved on the computer. The FBI computer forensic expert

testified that the emails and documents were created on Ray’s computer, however.

Ray also contends that in rebuttal, the prosecutor misstated the evidence about

computer vulnerability. Because both of the prosecutors comments were supported

by the record, they were not improper, much less plain error. See id. (when defense

does not object to statements during trial, we reverse only for plain error). Ray last

asserts the prosecutor improperly argued criminal propensity when she pointed out

that Ray continued to acquire domain names to which he had no legitimate interest

after being notified that such conduct was improper. This argument was directed at

identifying Ray as using the same screen name in contacting Best Buy and in

acquiring the domain names. Even if the comment was improper, it was not so

offensive that it deprived Ray of a fair trial. See id. 

We thus affirm Ray’s convictions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1655 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977678