## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 19 64

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

. Ray L eo n Hu et he r, *

* Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 16 , 20 11 Fi le d: Marc h 9 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re LOKEN, BRIGHT, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ BRIGHT, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ray Leo n Hue th er was co nv ic te d by a jury an d sen te nc ed to 24 0 m on th s’ (2 0

y ears ’) im

pr is on m en t fo r rece ip t of m at eri al s in vo lv in g th e se xu al ex pl oi t a ti on of

m in or s i n vi ol at io n of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) an d 2 25 2( b) (1 ), an d 1 20 m on th s’ (10

y ears ’) im pr is on m en t fo r po ss es si on of m at eri al s in vo lv in g th e se xu al ex pl oi ta ti on of

m in or s i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B) an d 2 25 2( b) (2 ), bo th sen te nc es to

ru n co ns ecu ti ve to each ot he r an d to hi s 30 -y ear st at e co ur t s en te nc e. Befo re t ria l, 1

Hue th er was ch arg ed in th e Dis tri ct Co ur t of W ard C o un ty, Mi no t, Nor th 1 Dak ot a, wit h gr os s se xu al im po si ti on an d po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy. The jury fo un d Hue th e r g u i l t y of gr os s se xu al im po si ti on an d th e co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 40Hue th er fil ed a m ot io n to su pp res s st at em en ts m ad e du rin g a se arch of hi s Farg o

res id en ce. Hue th er no w ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s 2

an d it s jud gm en t en te red ag ai ns t hi m

. In hi s ap pe al

, Hue th er co nt en ds th e d i st ric t

co ur t: ( 1 ) e r r ed by en te rin g co nv ic ti on s on bo th a gr eat er of fen se an d a le ss er in cl ud ed of

fen se co nt rary to th e Dou bl e Je op ard y Cl au se , (2 ) co m m it te d pl ai n erro r by ad m it ti ng te st im on y co nt rary t o th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se , ( 3) erre d by al lo win g

a po li ce of

fic er to gi ve te st im on y th at u s u r p e d th e jury’ s fu nc ti on , an d (4 ) erre d by
fai li ng to su pp res s un -Mi ran di zed st at em en ts

. W e affi rm in pa rt, rev ers e in pa rt, an d

rem an d.

I. BACKGRO UND

Afte r rece iv in g a co m

pl ai nt fro m Hue th er’s th en -g irl fri en d (h erei na fte r “ CT”)
al le gi ng h e r da ug ht er ha d be en se xu al ly ab us ed by Hue th er, th e Mi no t Po li ce Dep art m en t ex ecu te d a se a r c h o f H u e t he r’s res id en ce. At th e ti m e of th e se arch

, Hue th er ha d m ov ed to Farg o, bu t st il l r e t ai ne d own ers hi p of th e Mi no t res id en ce, of te n ret ur ni ng on th e week en ds

. In th e se arch

, po li ce se iz ed va rio us co m pu te r

e q u i pm en t an d op ti cal co m pu te r di sc s. An ex am in at io n of th e eq ui pm en t an d

co m pu te r di sc s rev eal ed ch il d po rn og rap hy st or ed in ab ou t 90 ho ur s of vi de o, an d 25 7
im ag es , 50 of wh ic h a pp eare d t o b e d up li cat es

.

Afte r th e Mi no t se arch

, si x la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers , in cl ud in g Ser ge an t Dav id
Goo dm an of th e Mi no t Po li ce Dep art m en t an d o f f i c ia ls fro m th e Farg o Po li ce

y ears ’ im pr is on m en t
, w i t h 10 y ears su sp en de d. The st at e di sm is se d th e ch il d
po rn og rap hy ch arg es

. At th e ti m e of se nt en c i n g , H ue th er, ag e 43

, wou ld li ke ly be im pr is on ed fo r th e res t of hi s li fe. He do es no t ch al le ng e th e fed eral se nt en ces as

ex c e s s i ve , bu t on ly ch al le ng es th em as to an al le ge d vi ol at io n of do ub le jeop ard y , di sc us se d in

fr a at p ag e 1 2.

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd

, Unite d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 2 of Nort h Dak ot a.

-2

-Dep art m en t an d th e Nor th Dak ot a Bu r e au of Cri m in al In ve st ig at io n (“ NDBCI” ),

ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt at th e Farg o res id en ce Hue th er sh ared wit h hi s gi rlf rie nd

. The of fic ers arri ve d at th e Farg o res id en ce at 7: 45 a.m

. on Aug us t 8, 20 08

. Upo n fin di ng Hue th er in be d, Goo dm an in fo rm ed Hue th er th at th e of fic e r s were th ere to
lo ok for pi ct ur es an d v id eo of C T’ s d au gh te r, an d t ha t he was no t u nd er ar res t o r in

cu st od y

. Hue th er si gn ed th e warra nt
, co ns en ti ng to a se arch of th e res id en ce. Offi cer Goo dm an th en as ke d Hue th er if he wou ld an swe r so m e qu es ti on s, an d ag ai n to ld hi m he was no t u n d e r arre st or in cu st od y

. Acco rd in g to Offi cer Goo dm an ’s writ te n

po li ce re po rt, h e al so to ld Hue th er th at he was free to le av e; alt ho ug h Hu et he r la te r

te st ifi ed at hi s st at e co ur t tri al th at he d i d n o t r e memb e r be in g to ld he was free to
le av e. Abo ut th irt y

m in ut es in to th e in te rv ie w, on e o f th e ot he r of fic ers en te red th e

ro om , at whi ch ti m e Offi cer Goo dm an be ga n reco rd in g th e in te rv ie w. Hue th er was

no t res tra in ed du rin g th e in te rv ie w; al th ou gh he te st ifi ed th at Offi cer Goo dm an was bl oc ki ng th e b ed ro om

do or , th e ro om ’s on ly exi t.

The in te rv ie w la st ed ap pr ox im at el y two ho u r s , d ur in g whi ch ti m e Hue th er

m ad e in cri m in at in g st at em en ts ab ou t hi s se xu al ab us e of C.T.’ s ch il d, an d in ad di ti on , ab ou t th e ch il d po rn og rap hy di sc ov ered du rin g th e Mi no t se a r c h

. A bo ut ni ne ty
mi n u t e s in to th e in te rv ie w, Offi cer Goo dm an st at ed to Hue th er, “ we’ve go t tw o of fic ers fro m

th e Mi no t Po li ce Depart m en t, two from th e Farg o Pol ic e Dep art m en t,

an d two fro m [NDBCI]. One of th e o f f i c e r s fro m th e [NDBCI] is

. . . is ou [r]

co m pu te r fo ren si c sp eci al is t. So he ’s he re to as si st wit h th e co m pu te r pa rt of it .”
Of fic er Goo dm an arre st ed Hue th er aft er th e in te rv ie w an d th e se arch co nc lu de d.

H ue th er was no t gi ve n Mir an da warn in gs pr io r to
, or at an y po in t du rin g, hi s in te rv ie w wit h Off

ic er Go od m an

.

The reaf te r, a fed eral gr an d jury ch arg ed Hue th er wit h rece i p t of m at eri al s in vo lv in g t he sex ua l ex pl oi ta ti on of a m in or , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2( a)(2 )

an d 22 52 (b )(1 ) ( “Co u n t One ”), an d po ss es si on of m at eri al s in vo lv in g th e se xu al

ex pl oi ta ti on of a m in or , in vi ol a t i o n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B) an d 22 52 (b )(2 )

-3

-(“ Co un t Two”)

. Befo re tri al

, Hue th er fil ed a m ot io n to su pp res s al l of hi s st at em en ts

fro m th e Far go sea rch . The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d Hu et he r’s m ot io n.

At tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d te st im on y fro m Sp eci al Age nt s Tim ot hy
Eric ks on , an NDBCI co m pu te r fo ren si c sp eci al is t, a n d Ran dy Held ero p wit h

Hom el an d Secu rit y In ve st ig at io ns

. Age nt Eric ks on ha d te n y ears of ex pe rie nc e

w or kin g unde r N DBCI’s In te rn et Cri m es Aga in st Ch il dr en Task Fo rce (ICAC TF) an d

was pr es en t at bo th th e Mi no t an d Farg o se arch es

. He co nd uc te d a fo ren si c

ex am in at io n of th e ha rd dr iv es an d co mp a c t d i sc s se iz ed du rin g th e Mi no t se arch

. U s i n g th e NDBCI’s fil e se rv er, he an al y zed th e fil es to de te rm in e kn own an d

un kn own ch il d vi ct im s of se xu al ex pl oi ta ti on

. He th en se nt th e fil es to th e Nati on al
Cen te r fo r Mi ss in g an d Ex p l o i te d Ch il dr en (NCMEC ), as m an da te d by NDBCI. Age nt Held ero p was res po ns ib le fo r de te rm in in g whe th er th e ch arg ed off en se s h ad

an in te rs ta te ne xu s an d te st ifi ed th at th e la be ls affi xe d to th e ha rd dr iv es sh owe d th ey

were m an uf

act ur ed ab ro ad

.

As pr ev io us ly st at ed

, th e jury fo un d Hue th er gu il t y o n bo th co un ts an d th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Hue th er to 24 0 m on th s’ (2 0 y ears ’) im pr is on m en t fo r Co un t
One an d 12 0 m on th s’ (1 0 y ears ’) im pr is on m en t fo r Co un t Two, bo th se nt en ces to ru n

co ns ecu ti ve to each ot he r an d to hi s 30 -y ear st at e co ur t s e n t e nc e. Hue th er no w
ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s an d th e jud gm en t en te red

ag ai ns t h im

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Mi ra nd

a

Hue th er co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to su pp res s th e

reco rd ed st at em en ts m ad e du rin g th e Farg o se arch

. W he n rev ie win g th e de ni al of a

m ot io n to su pp res s, we rev ie w “ th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d

-4

-it s co nc lu si on s of la w de no vo

. ” Uni te d St at es v. Mu hl en br uc h, 63 4 F.3 d 98 7, 99 5

(8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

The Fi fth Am en dm en t di ct at es th a t M i r a nd a warn in gs be gi ve n whe n

“ in te rro ga ti on is ‘ini ti at ed by la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers aft er a pe rs on ha s be en ta ke n in to cu st od y or ot he rwis e de pr iv ed of hi s free do m of act io n in an y si gn ifi can t way .’ ”
Id

. (q uo ti ng Mi ran da v. Ariz on a, 38 4 U.S

. 4 3 6

, 44 4 (1 96 6) ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. To
de te rm in e whe th er a de fen da n t w a s in cu st od y fo r Mi ran da pu rp os es , a co ur t lo ok s

to th e t ot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces co nf ro nt in g th e de fen da nt at th e ti m e of th e in te rv ie w, an d as ks “ whe th er a reas on ab le pe rs on in hi s po si ti on wou ld co ns id er hi s free do m of m ov em en t res tri ct ed to th e de gr ee as so ci at ed wit h fo rm al arre st .” Uni te d
St at es v. Fl or es -San do va l

, 47 4 F.3 d 11 42

, 11 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The in qu iry is an ob

jecti ve on e, wit ho ut co ns id erat io n of th e pa rti ci pa nt s’ su bjec ti ve vi ews

. Id

. ( q u ot at io n om it te d)

. The fo ll owi ng no n- ex cl us iv e fact or s in fo rm th e

cu st od y in qu iry:

(1 ) whe th er t he su sp ect was i nf or m ed th at he was fr ee t o l eav e an d th at an swe rin g was vo lu nt ary; (2 ) whe th er t he su sp ect po ss es se d fr eed om of m ov em en t; (3 ) whe th er t he su sp ect in it ia te d c on ta ct or v ol un ta ril y acq ui es ced ; (4 ) whe th er s tro ng arm tac ti cs or s tra te gi es were em pl oyed; (5 ) whe th er t he atm os ph ere was po li ce d om in at ed ; o r, (6 ) whe th er t he su sp ect was p la ced un de r arre st at t he en d o f
qu es ti on in g.

Mu hl en br uc h, 63 4 F.3 d at 99 6. “ The fir st th ree

. . . fact or s whi ch

, if pr es en t, m it ig at e

ag ai ns t th e ex is te nc e of cu st od y

. . . th e la st th ree

. . . are ag gr av at in g fact or s whic h,
if pr es en t, ag gr av at e th e ex is te nc e of cu st od y.” Uni te d St at es v. Axs om , 28 9 F.3 d
49 6, 5 00 -0 1 (8 th Cir . 20 02 ).

The reco rd es ta bl is he s th at th e fir st
, th ird an d si xt h fact or s were pr es en t.
Offi cer Go od m an ad vi se d Hu et he r, at le as t twi ce, th at he was n ot un de r arre st or i n

-5

-cu st od y

. It is un di sp ut ed th at whe n Offi cer Goo dm an an d th e ot he r of fic ers in it ia te d

co nt act wit h Hue th er, he di d no t as k t o l eav e, refu se to an swe r, or req ue st an y th in g du rin g th e in te rv ie w, de sp it e be in g to ld th at he was no t u n d e r a r r e s t or in cu st od y

. In de ed , Offic er Go od m an di d n ot de ci de to arre st Huet he r un ti l af te r th e in te rv ie w.

The reco rd sh ows Hue th er f r eel y an swe rin g Offi cer Goo dm an ’s qu es ti on s

reg ard in g th e al le ga ti on s of ch il d se xu al ab us e, an d rece ip t an d po s s e ss io n of ch il d

po rn og rap hy. In fact

, Hue th er be cam e m or e res po ns iv e in an swe rin g O f f i c er Goo dm an ’s qu es ti on s as th e in te rv ie w pr og res se d. He al so co o p e r at ed wit h th e of fic ers in pro vi di ng acce ss to hi s l ap to p.

Hue th er cl ai m s Of

f i c e r Goo dm an m ad e a ve rb al sh owi ng of fo rce– te ll in g
Hue th er ab ou t th e of

fic ers pa rti ci pa ti ng in th e se arch

, in cl ud in g a co m pu te r fo ren si c

sp eci al is t. Hue th er cl ai m s th at th e in te rv ie w t he n be cam e cu st od ia l, in vi ol at io n of
hi s Fi ft h Am en dm en t rig ht s. Howev er, whe n Hue th er si gn ed th e se arch warra nt
, whi ch li st ed th e of

fic ers ’ na m es , he be cam e aware of th e nu m be r of of fic ers pr es en t.
Hue th er al so ha s pr io r ex pe rie nc e wit h la w en fo rcem en t— he was arre st ed aft er be in g

qu es ti on ed by la w en fo rcem en t in Mo nt an a. At a m in im um , th es e fact or s sh ow th at
Hue th er is no st ran ge r to be in g in te rv ie wed by la w en fo rcem en t an d th at he

vo lu nt ari ly cho se to be co op erat iv e.

Fu rth er, th is co ur t’s rece nt de ci si on in Uni te s St at es v. Perr in

, 65 9 F.3 d 71 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), in di cat es th at mo r e th an wha t is in th e reco rd he re rev ie wed is

req ui red fo r a de te rm in at io n th at Hue th er was in cu st od y fo r Mi ran da pu rp os es

. A
fed eral of fic er, on e of at le as t si x in ta ct ic al ge ar who en te red th e ho us e wit h a se arch

warra nt fo r ch il d po rn og rap hy, in te rv ie wed Perr in in hi s be dr oo m

. Id

. at 72 0. Befo re

ta ki ng Perr in to th e be dr oo m , th e of fic er to ld Perr in he was free to le av e an d th at he
di d no t hav e to an swe r an y qu es ti on s, t o wh ic h P erri n i nd ic at ed th at he un de rs to od

. Id

. The of

fic er ne arl y cl os ed th e be dr o o m d o o r, le av in g it sl ig ht ly op en , en ab li ng

an ot he r of

fic er to en te r th e be dr oo m to co nd uc t a se arch du rin g th e in te rv ie w. Id

. No

-6

-of

fic ers res tra in ed Perr in or po si ti on ed th em se lv es so as to in hi bi t hi s ex it

. Id

. at 72 1.
Lik e Offi cer Goo dm an , th e of fic er th ere di d no t rai se hi s vo ic e or th reat en Perr in ; an d
li ke Perr in

, Hue th er ha d no tro ub le “ un de rs ta nd in g or an swe rin g qu es ti on s ab ou t
in te rn et us e an d ch il d po rn og rap hy.” Id . a t 72 0. Th e ci rcu m st an ces were s uc h t ha t
Perr in wou ld ha ve co ns id ered hi m se lf free no t to an swe r th e of fic er’s qu es ti on s an d
le av e t he pr em is es , an d th eref or e no t in cu st od y whe n he co nf es se d to po ss es si ng ch il d p or no gr ap hy. Id . at 7 21

.

Perr in rei te rat es th at th is co ur t ha s he ld “ ci rcu m st a n c e s mo re do m in at ed by

po li ce were no t cu st od ia l.” Id

. (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Czi ch ray, 37 8 F.3 d 82 2, 82 5,
83 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) ( ho ld in g th at a ch iro pr act or was no t in cu st od y fo r Mi ran da

pu rp os es de sp it e an “ en su in g in te rv ie w[] whi ch la st ed ne arl y se ve n ho ur s” ); Uni te d
St at es v. LeBru n, 36 3 F.3 d 71 5, 72 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (h ol di ng th at de fen da nt was no t
in cu st od y whe n he ga ve in cu lp at or y st at em en ts in a win do wles s ro om wit h en la rg ed ph ot og rap hs on th e wall as a de cep ti ve in te rv ie w ta ct ic an d whe re th e of fic ers “ fal se ly

tru m pe d u p t he ev id en ce t he y sai d t he y po ss es se d.” ).

W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t. The reco rd he re su pp or ts th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de ci si on de cl in in g to su pp res s th e ev id en ce. Mo reo ve r, th e reco rd sh ows th at
Hue th er, wit ho ut he si ta t i o n , an swe red th e qu es ti on s rel at in g to th e m at eri al s in hi s

co m pu te r.

B. Con fro nta tio n Cla us e

Hue th er co nt en d s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng te st im on y fro m Age nt
Eric ks on , whi ch rep eat ed th e co nc lu si on s of a rep or t pr ep ared by th os e at NCMEC,

an d te st im on y fro m Age nt Held ero p co nc ern in g th e ha rd dr iv es ’ an d co m pa ct di sc s’

or ig in . Huet he r di d n ot rai se th is is su e in th e d is tri ct co ur t; acco rd in gl y , we rev ie w th e di st ric t cou rt’s rul in g for pl ai n erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Olan o, 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 6 (1 99 3)

. To es ta bl is h pl ai n erro r, Hue th er m us t sh ow a n e r r o r t ha t is pl ai n an d th at

-7

-affe ct s hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. Uni te d St at es v. Mi rel es , 61 7 F.3 d 10 09

, 10 12 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ). Bu t ev en whe re pl ai n erro r is fo un d, Hue th er wil l no t au to m at i c a l l y pr ev ai l

as we wil l rem ed y th e erro r on ly if it “ se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or pu bl ic

rep ut at io n of jud ic i a l p r o c e ed in gs .” Uni te d St at es v. Ro be rts on , 60 6 F.3 d 94 3, 50 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Olan o, 5 07 U.S. 72 5, 7 36 (19 93 )).

Hue th er’s Co nf

ro nt at io n Cl au se arg um en ts rel y m ai nl y on Bu ll co m in g v. New

Mex ic o, 13 1 S. Ct

. 27 05

, 27 16 (2 01 1) (h ol di n g d e f e n d an t ha d rig ht to co nf ro nt

an al y st who cert ifi ed blo od- al co hol re por t) and Mel en de z-Di az v. Mas sa ch us et ts
, 12 9
S

. C t

. 25 27

, 25 32 (2 00 9) (h ol di ng fo ren si c la bo rat or y ex pe rt’s st at em en t th at

su bs ta nc e was co c a i n e is te st im on ia l fo r Si xt h Am en dm en t Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se

p u r p o s e s)

. Acco rd in g to Hue th er, Age nt s Eric ks on ’s an d Held ero p’s te st im on y im pr op erl y al lo wed th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e the j ur is di ct io na l el em en t of Co un ts One

an d Two— th at th e im ag es were o f i n d i vi du al s fro m ou ts id e Nor th Dak ot a an d

tra ns po rte d to N o r th Dak ot a vi a th e in te rn et
, an d th at th e ha rd dr iv es an d co m pa ct
di sc s were m an uf

act ur ed ou ts id e Nor th Dak ot a—b y rep eat in g co nc lu si on s of no nte st ifyin g p ers on s. Hu et he r’s rel ia nc e is m is pl aced

.

Bu ll co m in g es ta bl is he d th at an ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en t “ m ay no t be in tro du ced

ag ai ns t th e accu se d at tri al un le ss th e wit ne ss who m ad e th e st at em en t is un av ai la bl e

an d th e accu se d ha s ha d a p r i o r o p po rtu ni ty t o co nf ro nt th at wit ne ss .” 13 1 S. Ct . a t
27 13

. Tha t case di d no t ad dr es s ex pe rt te st im on y ba se d on in de pe nd en t kn owl ed ge of th e ev id en ce, as is th e cas e he re. Evi de nc e of th e im ag es ’ or ig in cam e fro m Age nt
Eric ks on ’s te st im on y ba se d on hi s tra in in g, te n y ears of ex pe rie nc e, an d us e of
NDBCI’s fil e se rv er t o i de nt ify the im ag es . The fi le s wer e th en sen t t o NCMEC as

m an da te d by NDBCI

. The NCMEC rep or t was n o t o ffer ed as ev id en ce at tri al an d

no t ne ces sa ry to pr ov e th e juri sd ic ti on al el em en t of the of fen se

. Bu t se e Mel en de zDiaz

, 12 9 S. Ct

. at 25 40 (aff id av it s were “ pr ep ared sp eci fic al ly fo r us e at pe ti ti on er’s
tri al .”)

-8

-Age nt Held ero p te st ifi ed th at th e la be ls affi xe d to th e ha rd dr iv es sh owe d th ey

were m an uf

act ur ed ou ts id e th e Uni te d St at es

. He al so te st ifi ed to a co nv ers at io n wit h

pe rs on ne l at Max el l, th e CDs ’ di st rib ut or , in co m pl et in g hi s an al y si s of th e m at eri al s.
Bu t an ex am in at io n of th e la be ls al on e sh owe d th e in te rs ta te tra ns po rta ti on of th e ha rd
dr iv es

. Thu s, th is ev id en ce un de rm in es Hue th er’s co nt en ti on th at Age nt Held ero p’s

te st im on y vi ol at ed th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se

. See Uni te d St a t es v. Koc h, 62 5 F.3 d
47 0, 48 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (h ol di ng th at di s t r i c t c o u rt di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in
ad m it ti ng te st im on y th at de fen da nt ’s co m pu te r an d fla sh dr iv e were la be le d as ha vi ng be en m an uf

act ur ed ab ro ad to pro ve in te rs ta te co m m erce ele m en t).

The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ad m it ti ng A g e n t s Er ic ks on ’s an d
Held ero p’s t es ti m on y

.

C. Expe rt Te st imony

Hue th er al so co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed Fed

. R. Evi d. 70 2 an d 70 4
whe n it pe rm it te d Age nt Eric k s o n to te st ify th at he be li ev ed Hue th er pu t th e ch il d

po rn og rap hy on th e ha rd dr iv es

. Hue th er arg ue s th e te st im on y a l s o im pr op erl y

vo uc he d fo r CT’s cred ib il it y whi le em br aci ng a n ul ti m at e is su e. “ W e rev ie w th e

ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o f a d is tri ct co ur t o nl y for ab us es of di sc ret io n, an d wil l rev ers e

on ly whe n an im

pr op er ev id en ti ary ru li ng affe ct s th e s u b s t a n ti al rig ht s of th e de fen da nt

. . . .” Uni te d St at es v. Yarri ng to n, 63 4 F.3 d 44 0, 4 4 7 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 11 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ W e wil l no t rev ers e if th e erro r was ha rm le ss .” Id

. (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

.

F E D

. R. E V ID . 70 2 p ro vi de s:

A wit ne ss who is qu al ifi ed as an ex pe rt by kn owl e d g e , sk il l,

ex pe rie nc e, tra in in g, or ed uc at io n m ay te st ify in th e fo rm of an op in io n

or ot he rwis e if

:

-9

-(a) th e ex pe rt’s sc ie nt ifi c, te ch ni cal

, or ot he r s p e ci al iz ed

kn owl ed ge wil l he lp th e tri er of fact to un de rs ta nd th e ev id en ce or t o de te rm in e a fac t i n i ss ue ; (b ) th e te st im on y

is ba se d o n s uf

fic ie nt fact s o r da ta ; (c) th e te st im on y is the prod uc t of rel ia bl e pr in ci pl es an d m et ho ds ;

an d (d ) th e ex pe rt ha s rel ia bl y ap pl ie d th e p rin ci pl es an d m et ho ds to th e fac ts of t he cas e.

F E D . R. E V ID . 70 2.

“ In a cri m in al cas e, an ex pe rt wit ne ss m us t no t st at e an op in io n ab ou t whe th er th e de fen da nt di d or di d no t ha ve a m en ta l st at e or co nd it i o n t h a t co ns ti tu te s an el em en t of th e cri m e ch arg ed or of a de fen se

. . . .” F E D

. R. E V ID

. 70 4. Bu t ge ne ral ly,

“ [a]n op in io n is no t ob

jecti on ab le jus t be cau se it em br aces an ul ti m at e is su e.” Id

. To
de te rm in e whe th er Hue th er rece iv ed th e im ag es vi a in te rs ta te co m m erce , th e jury ha d

to acce pt th at fil e feat ur es fo un d on th e co m pu te rs se iz ed fro m th e Mi no t se arch an d

on Hue th er’s la pt op in Farg o m at ch ed th os e on th e in te rn et

. Bec au se kn owl ed ge of

co m pu te rs an d in te rn et us e di ffe r w id el y am on g la y juro rs , Age nt Eric ks on ’s

te st im on y ap pr op ria te ly he lp ed be tt er un de rs ta nd th e ev id en ce. See Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 45 7 F.3 d 81 7, 82 4 (8 th Ci r 20 06 ) (“ Exp ert t e s t i mo n y is ap pr op ria te whe n it
rel at es to is su es th at are be y on d th e ke n of pe op le of or di n a r y i n t e ll ig en ce.”) His

te st im on y as si st ed th e jury in pr oc es si ng in fo rm at io n rel at in g to wh e t he r Hue th er do wnl oa de d a nd sav ed th e im ag es an d v id eo s t o h is ha rd dri ve s.

Fu rth er, it is un di sp ut ed th at Age nt Eric ks on ha d sp eci al iz ed kn owl ed ge ba se d

on hi s te n y ears of ex pe rie nc e wor ki ng as a m em be r or co or di na to r fo r th e ICACTF.

He kn ew Hue th er had acce ss to co m pu te rs in Mi no t and Farg o at all rel ev an t tim es ,

an d th at Hue th er a d mi t t e d t o m ov in g th e do wnl oa de d im ag es to fo ld ers an d ha rd
dr iv es

. He pa rti ci pa te d in th e in ve st ig at io n an d was pr es en t du rin g bo th th e Mi no t

an d Farg o se arch es

. He pe rs on al ly pe rfo rm ed co m pu te r an al ys i s o n Hue th er’s

co m pu te rs an d e qu ip m en t s ei zed at b ot h re si de nc es

.

-1 0-The di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury on ho w to co ns id er ex pe rt te st im on y an d

ho w t o dr aw in fere nc es

. It fu rth er in st ru ct ed th at th e jury al on e co ul d de te rm in e whe th er th e im ag es of c hi ld po rn og rap hy had be en rece iv ed ov er t he in te rn et . And
li ke te st im on y fro m ot he r wit ne ss es , th e ju r y— a s tri er of fact —was free to reject Age nt Erick so n’s o pi ni on

.

Hue th er wou ld al so ha ve us in te rp ret Age nt Eric ks on ’s te st im on y as bo ls te rin g CT’s te st im on y th at no on e el se cam e to th e Mi no t res id en ce aft er Hue th er m ov ed ou t,

an d th eref

or e no on e el se co ul d ha ve p l a c e d th e im ag es on th e ha rd dr iv es

. W he n

a s k e d w h e t h er he ha d an op in io n ab ou t who m ay ha ve pu t th e im ag es on th e CDs

, Age nt Eric ks on res po nd ed

, “ Yes .” Ove r Hue th er’s ob jecti o n, th e di st ric t co ur t

pe rm it te d Age nt Eric ks on to te st ify, “ [b ]ased on th e de ta il ed fil e st ru ct ur e an d th e way th at th ey were co ns is te nt am on g al l th e co mpu te rs th at we di sc ov ered ch il d po rn

. .

. th e on ly pe rs on th at was at bo th re s i d e n c e s w as Ray Hue th er.” Co nt rary to
Hue th er’s co nt e n t i o n , “[t ]he us e of op in io ns is no t ab ol is he d by

. . . ru le [7 02 ],
ho wev er. It wil l co nt in ue to be pe rm is si bl e fo r

. . . ex pe rts to ta ke th e fu rth er st ep of

su gg es ti ng th e in f

e r e nc e whi ch sh ou ld be dr awn fro m ap pl y in g th e sp eci al iz ed
kn owl ed ge to th e fact s.” F E D

. R

. E V I D

. 70 2 ad vi so ry co m m . n ot es , 1 97 2 Pro po se d

Ru le s; see als o F E D . R. E V ID . 70 3 a nd 70 5.

Eve n if we ag ree wit h Hue th er th at al lo win g th is s t a t em en t in to ev id en ce in va de s t he jury’ s p ro vi nc e as th e tri er of fact, the erro r is a h arm le ss on e. The ju ry

re cei ve d ev id en ce in th e fo rm of Hue th er’s own st at em en ts du rin g Offi ce r G oodm an ’ s in te rv ie w wi th Hue th er th at he m ov ed th e im ag es fro m on e fo l d e r t o a no th er in th e ha rd dr iv es an d la te r pu t th em on co m pa ct di sc s. The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t
ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th is qu es ti on ed ev id en ce an d we wil l no t rev ers e it s

ru li ng on th is is su e.

-1 1-D. Dou bl e J eo pa rdy Cla us e

Fi na ll y , Hue th er co nt en ds th at hi s co nv ic ti on s an d se pa rat e se nt en ces fo r bo th

rece ip t an d po ss es si on vi ol at e th e Fi fth Am en dm en t’s Dou bl e Je op ard y Cl au se

. Bec au se Hue th er di d no t rai se a do ub le jeop ard y de f en se in th e di st ric t co ur t, we

rev ie w hi s cl ai m fo r pl ai n erro r. F E D

. R. C R IM

. P. 52 (b ); Uni te d St at es v. Si ck in ge r, 17 9 F .3d 10 91 , 10 92 -9 3 (8 th Cir . 19 99 ).

To pr ev ai l un de r a do ub le jeop ard y cl ai m , Hue th er m us t fir st sh ow th at he was

co nv ic te d of “ two of

fen se s th at are in la w an d fac t th e sa m e.” Uni te d St at es v. Mu hl en br uc h, 63 4 F.3 d at 10 0 2 (fi nd in g de fen da nt ’s rece ip t an d po ss es si on

co nv ic ti on s were ba se d on th e sa m e co n d u c t
, su ch th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s erro r in

en te rin g jud gm en t ag ai ns t hi m on bo th co un ts was pl ai n, an d th e erro r affe ct ed hi s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The pa rti es do no t di sp ut e t ha t a §

22 52 (a)( 4) (B) po ss es si on of fen se is a le ss er in cl ud ed of fen s e to th e § 22 52 (a)( 2)

r e c e i p t o ffen se un de r th e la w. See id

. The is su e th en is whe th er Hue th er’s

co nv ic ti on s wer e b as ed on th e sa m e fac ts

.

W hi le th e go ve rn m en t is no t pr oh ib it ed fro m ch arg in g Hue th er wit h bo t h a

gr eat er an d le ss er of

fen se , th e jury m

us t be in st ru ct ed th at th ey can no t co nv ic t hi m fo r bo th of fen se s ba se d on th e sa m e f a c t s

. U n i t e d St at es v. Dix on , 50 7 F.2 d 68 3, 68 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 74 ). The y m

us t be ta sk ed wit h se pa rat in g th e ev id en ce in co ns id eri ng th e

co un ts se pa rat el y , an d in st ru ct ed th at th ey m ay no t co nv ic t Hue th er of bo th co un ts
ba se d on ov erl ap pi ng ev id en ce. See id

. Su ch an in st ru ct io n s ho ul d no t be hi dd en fro m th e jury.

Rel ev an t to ou r in qu iry are jury in st ru ct io ns F-3

, F-4

, an d F-5

. Ju ry in st ru ct io n F-3 read s, i n re le va nt pa rt:

-1 2-Each al le ge d of fen se , an d th e e v i d e nc e pe rta in in g to it

, m us t be

co ns id ered se pa rat el y

. The fact th at y ou m ay f i n d t h e Defen da nt no t
gu il ty or gu il ty as to on e of th e of fen se s ch arg ed sh ou ld no t co nt ro l y ou r

ve rd ic t as to th e ot he r of

fen se ch arg ed

. You m

us t ba se y ou r ve rd ic t on each co un t s ol el y

on th e ev id en ce p res en te d re le va nt to th at co un t.

Ju ry i n st ru ct io ns F-4 an d F-5 go on to se t fo rth th e el em en ts of rece ip t an d

po ss es si on , res pe ct iv el y , wit h th e on ly di st in ct io n be in g us e of th e wor d “ rece ip t” or

“ po ss es si on .”

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t in st ru ct th e jury th at th ey m ay no t co nv ic t Hue th er of
b o t h r e c e i p t an d po ss es si on ba se d on th e sa m e fact s. At m os t, jury in st ru ct io n F- 3
di rect ed th e jury to co ns id er Co un t One an d Co un t Two sep arat el y . Wit ho ut m or e, th e jury co ul d ha ve ve ry well co nv ic te d Hue th er of rece iv in g th e sa m e im ag es th at he

was als o fo un d t o h av e p os se ss ed

.

The ev id e n c e al so di d no t sp eci fy whi ch im ag es Hue th er was ch arg ed wit h

rece iv in g a nd whi ch he was cha rg ed wit h po ss es si ng

. Dur in g tri al

, th e g ov ern m en t

sp ok e of Hue th er’s co nd uc t co ll ect iv el y , m ak in g no di s t i n c t i o n as to whi ch im ag es he was fo un d to ha ve rece iv ed or po ss es se d; le av in g th at ta sk fo r th e jury to pe rfo rm

. Si m il arl y , th e in di ct m en t st at es th at “ [f]rom a n u n kn own ti m e un ti l ab ou t Aug us t
20 08 ,” Hue th er kn owi ng ly rece iv ed (Co un t One ) or po ss es se d (Co un t Two) “ vi su al
de pi ct io ns in vo lv [in g] th e us e of m in or s en ga gi ng in se xu al ly ex pl ic i t c o n d uc t.”

In de ed

, th e la ng ua ge se t fo rth un de r Co un ts One an d Two ch arg ed Hue th er wit h

rece iv in g an d po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hi c im ag es du rin g th e sa m e ti m e pe r i o d

,

na m el y so m et im e u nt il Aug us t o f 20 08 , wit ho ut refe ren ce t o d is ti nc t ac ts of r ecei pt

or po ss es si on on di ffer en t da te s or at di ffer en t ti m es

. Th u s , fai lu re to pr op erl y in st ru ct th e jury was pl ai n e rro r. See M uh le nb ru ch , 63 4 F .3d at 1 00 4.

Hue th er’s se nt en ces ru n co ns ecu ti ve to hi s 30 -y ear st at e co ur t se nt en ce. Thu s, th e e r r o r su bs ta nt ia ll y affe ct s hi s rig ht s un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t. Si m pl y pu t,

-1 3-Hue th er rece iv ed a lo ng er pr is on te rm th an he wou ld ha ve wit ho ut th e erro r. See id

.

at 10 04

. W e th eref

or e de te rm in e it pr op er to ha ve th e di st ric t co ur t v a cat e on e of

Hue th er’s co nv ic ti on s.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e affi rm in pa rt, reve rs e in pa rt, and rem an d with in st ru ct io n fo r th e di st ric t

co ur t t o v acat e o ne of Hu et he r’s co nv ic ti on s an d t he sen te nc e im po se d t he reo n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-