FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT APRIL9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13472 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -001 79 -C R -O D E -1-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s T I M O T H Y P R U N I C K , a .k .a . m a k e n e 1 s q u ir t, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l9, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T he gove rnm e ntappe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng T i m othy2

P runi ck’ s m ot i on for anew tri al . P runi ck w as i nd i ct ed for: (1) a tt em pt ed use of a com pu t ert o ent i ce a m i no r t o eng age i n sexual ac t i vi ty, 18 U . S . C . § 2 42 2(b), ( C o u n t O n e ) ; ( 2 ) tr a v e lin g in te r s ta te w ith th e in te n t to e n g a g e in s e x u a l a c tiv ity w i th a chi l d u nd erthe age of 12, 18 U . S . C . § 2 24 1(c) , (C ou ntT w o); ( 3) tr a ns por t i ng c hi l d pornogr aphy , 18 U . S . C . § 2252A ( a ) ( 1) , ( C ountT hr e e ) ; a nd ( 4 ) p o s s e s s io n o f

c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y , 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 A ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) , ( C o u n t F o u r ) . T he courtdeni ed P runi ck’ s pre tri al m ot i on t o severC ou nt s O ne and T w o and try th e m s e p a r a te ly f

r o m C o u n ts T h r e e a n d F o u r , th e p o rn o g r ap h y c h a r g e s . T he j ury ul t i m a t e l y f

ound P runi c k gui l ty on C ount s O ne a nd T w o a nd not gu i l ty on C ou nt s T hree and F ou r. T he courtthen g ra nt ed P runi ck’ s m ot i on for a ne w tr i a l , ba s e d on the f i ndi ng tha the s uf

f e r e d c om pe l l i ng pr e

j udi c e i n try i ng the pornogr aphy c ha r ge s w i th the e nt i c i ng a nd tr a ve l i ng c ha r ge s , a nd tha tthe pornogr aphi c i m a ge s w oul d notbe a dm i s s i bl e i n as e pa r a t e tr i a l on C ount s O ne a nd T w o. P u rs u an t t o F ed er al R u le o f C rim in al P ro ce d u re 3 3 , “ [u ]p o n th e d ef en d an t’ s m ot i on, the c our tm a y va c a t e a ny j udgm e nta nd gr a ntane w tr i a l i f the i nt e r e s tof ju s tic e s o r e q u ir e s .” F e d . R . C r im . P . 3 3 ( a ) . A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to g r a n t a new tri al i s w i thi n the “ soun d d i sc re t i on of the . . . courtand w i l l no tbe ov erturned on appe a l unl e s s the rul i ng i s s o c l e a r l y e rr one ous a s t o c ons t i tut e a n abus e of3

di sc re t i on . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . V

ic a r ia , 12 F . 3d 19 5, 19 8 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). T hi s s t andard i s “ broad” and “i s notl i m i t ed t o cas es w here the di stri ctcourtconcl ud es thati t s pri or rul i ng , up on w hi ch i tbase s the new tri al , w as l egal l y e rr on eous. ” I d. A di s tr i c tc our tm a y gr a ntane w tr i a l w he n a de f e nda ntw a s “ unabl e t o r e c e i ve af a i rtr i a l a nd s uf

f e r e d a c tua l , c om pe l l i ng prej ud i ce . . . . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. P edri ck , 18 1 F . 3d 12 64 , 12 67 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). T h e is s u e b e f

o r e u s is w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in f i ndi ng c om pe l l i ng pr e

j udi c e s uf

f i c i e ntt o w a rr a ntane w tr i a l on C ount s O ne a nd T w o . T h e f

o llo w in g f

a c ts s u p p o r t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g : ( 1 ) th e illic it p o rn o g r ap h ic im a g e s w e r e q u ite g r ap h ic a n d d is tu rb in g , h ig h ly in f la m m a to ry in n a tu r e , a n d d is p la y e d o n ala r g e s c r e e n a t tr ia l; ( 2 ) th e g o v e rn m e n t r e p e a te d ly l i nke d the pr e s e nc e of

the i m a ge s on P runi c k’ s c om put e rt o hi s i nt e nti n tr a ve l i ng to A tla n ta ; a n d ( 3 ) th e im a g e s w e r e a lm o s t tw o y e a r s o ld ; th e y h a d a u to m a tic a lly be e n s a ve d ont o P runi c k’ s c om put e r ; a nd P runi c k w a s l i ke l y una w a r e of a nd un abl e t o acc es s them . T he re cord thu s s up po rt s the fi nd i ng of the court , w hi ch “s a w th e w itn e s s e s , h e a r d a ll o f th e e v id e n c e , a n d is in th e b e s t p o s itio n to e v a lu a te w hether [ P runi ck] suff

er ed com pel l i ng prej ud i ce w arra nt i ng a new tri al . ” I d. at 1 2 7 2 . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on, a nd w e a f f i rm the4

g r a n t o f an e w tr ia l a s to C o u n ts O n e a n d T w o o f th e in d ic tm e n t. AF F I RME D.