# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 18 84

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ja so n Hi ll

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J op li n

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 14 , 20 14
Fil ed : M ay

7, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and BYE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

A jury co nv ic te d Ja so n Hil l of kn owi ng l y r e c e iv in g an d di st rib ut in g ch il d

po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2)

, (b )(1 ) (Co un t 1) an d kn owi ng ly

po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at ion of 18 U

. S. C. § 2252 (a)(4) (B), (b )(2 ) (Co un t2)

. H i l l a pp eal s, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g, wit ho ut a he ari ng , h is 1

m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce se iz ed fro m hi s co m pu te r, an d d e n yi ng hi s m ot io n to

di sm is s a ch arg ed co un t on do ub le jeop ard y gr ou nd s. Hil l fu rth er arg ue s th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d i n de nyin g hi s m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on bo th co un ts . W it h 2

ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af fir m

.

I. BACKGRO UND

On Aug us t 3, 20 10

, Ja m es S mi t h

, a Cas sv il le

, Mi ss ou ri, po li ce of fic er

pa rti ci pa ti ng in a so ut hwe st Mi ss ou ri c y be r cri m es tas k fo rce in ve st ig at in g In te rn et

c r i mes ag ai ns t ch il dr en , us ed Lim eWire, an on li ne “ pe er-t o- pe er” fil e-s ha rin g

pr og ram , to acce ss Hil l’s co m pu te r. Offic er Sm it h d own lo ad ed te n im ag es of wha t

he be li ev ed to be ch il d po rn og rap hy fro m Hil l’s sh ared fo ld er on Lim eWire. Bas ed 3

on th e fil es do wnl oa de d fro m Hil l’s co m pu te r, O f f i c e r Sm it h, Task Fo rce Offi cer

Bri an Mar ti n, an d Sp eci a l A g e n t J a mes D. Hol dm an Jr

. of th e U.S. Dep art m en t of

Hom el an d Secu rit y (DHS) ob ta in ed a fed eral warra nt to se arch Hil l’s res id en ce fo r
ch il d p or no gr ap hy.

The of fic ers ex ecu te d th e warra nt on Sep te m be r 28

, 20 10

. W he n Hil l an swe red

th e do or , th e of

fic ers se rv ed th e warra nt an d ex pl ai ne d th ey were lo ok in g fo r ev id en ce

of ch il d po rn og rap hy. Afte r waiv in g, in writ in g, hi s rig ht s pr es cri be d by Mi ran da v.

Ariz on a, 38 4 U.S. 43 6 (1 96 6)

, Hil l ad m it te d he ha d be en do wnl oa di ng la rg e am ou nt s

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard E. Dor r, la te Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f or th e 1

Wes te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ad op ti ng two rep or ts an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Ja m es C. Eng la nd

, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri.

The Hon or ab le Dav id Greg or y Kay s be cam e Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d St at es 2

Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i o n J an ua ry 4, 2 01 4.

In st al li ng Lim eWire au to m at ic al ly allo wed Hil l t o s ha re fi le s wi th an y ot he r 3

Lim eWire u se r in th e wor ld

.

-2

-of

ad ul t po rn og rap hy t hr ou gh Lim eWire fo r ab ou t a y ear, bu t “ in it ia ll y de ni ed ev er

se ei ng an y ch il d po rn og rap hy.” Hil l to ld th e of fic ers he m ay ha ve se en a “ po pu p” fo r
wha t “ he th ou gh t

. . . m ig ht be ch il d po rn og rap hy” th e ni gh t be fo re th e se arch

, bu t

t h a t “ he de le te d it im m ed ia te ly” as he al way s di d wit h su ch “ po pu ps .” Hil l’s st o r y
ch an ge d o ve r ti m e.

As th e in te r v i e w p r o gr es se d, th e of fic ers as ke d Hil l whe th er he us ed se arch

te rm s freq ue nt ly us ed to ob ta in ch il d po rn og rap hy—te rm s co nt ai ne d in th e fil en am es
Offi cer Sm it h ob ta in ed fro m Hil l’s co m pu te r. Hil l a d mi t t e d he m ay ha ve

“ acci de nt al ly typed ‘pret een ’” as a se arch te rm in Lim eWire la te at ni gh t whe n it was
da rk or whe n he was d r u nk

. Hil l st at ed he de le te d an y ch il d po rn og rap hy he

acci de nt al ly do wnl oa de d. W he n p r e s s e d

, Hil l ad m it te d he in te nt io na ll y us ed th e

se arch te rm “ pr et een ” an d vi ewed at le as t on e hu nd red im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy,

on e in vo lv in g a ch il d as y ou ng as fiv e y ears ol d. Hil l ev en tu al ly to ld th e of fic ers he

vi ewed ch il d po rn og rap hy “ on ce or twice a m on th ” fro m Mar ch 20 10 to th e ti m e of

th e se arch “ ou t o f cu rio si ty,” bu t as se rte d h e d id no t s av e it

.

The of fi c e rs se iz ed Hil l’s co m pu te rs , in cl ud in g th e on e on whi ch Hil l

ad m it te dl y do wnl oa de d ad ul t an d ch il d po rn og rap hy. Sp eci al Age nt Ja m es Kan at zar,

a fo ren si c ex am in er fo r DHS, in sp ect ed Hil l’s co m pu te r an d fo un d ev id en ce th at fil es

co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy ha d be en do wnl oa de d an d st or ed on Hil l’s ha rd dr iv e. Age nt Kan at zar fo un d t race ev id en ce t ha t th e fil es Offi cer Sm it h do wnl oa de d fro m

Hil l’s co m

pu te r ha d be en on th e ha rd dr iv e be fo re be in g de le te d. Age nt Kan at zar al so

fo un d t hr ee v id eo s t he jury de te rm in ed to be ch il d p or no gr ap hy in Hi ll ’s Lim eWire

di rect or y , whi ch m ad e th e fil es acce ss ib le to ot he r Lim eWire us ers

. Age nt Kan at zar

al so fo un d fo ur fil es co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy in t h e r ecycle bi n on Hil l’s

co m pu te r. Befo re be in g m ov ed to th e co m pu te r’s recycle b in , t he fil es wou ld ha ve
be en sa ve d so m ewh ere el se on Hil l’s ha rd dr iv e. One of th e im ag es in th e recycle bi n (Exh ib it 40 ) m at ch ed on e of th e im ag es Offi cer Sm it h do wnl oa de d on Aug us t 3, 20 10
(Exh ib it 10 ).

-3

-Hil l was in di ct ed on Nov em be r 9, 20 10

, an d arre st ed th e ne xt da y

. Befo re tri al

, Hil l mov ed to su pp res s th e ev id en ce se iz ed fro m hi s co m pu te r, al le gi ng th e in it ia l

co nt act wit h hi s co m

pu te r was an un reas on ab le s e arch an d an y th in g de riv ed

th eref ro m was ta in te d. The di st ric t co ur t d e n i e d th e m ot io n. Hil l th en m ov ed to

di sm is s ei th er Co un t 1 or Co un t 2, arg ui ng co nv ic ti on on bo th co un ts wou ld vi ol at e

hi s rig ht ag ai ns t do ub le jeop ard y be cau se po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy is a le ss erin cl ud ed of

fen se of rece ip t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, c o n c l u d i n g th ere

was no do ub le jeop ard y is su e be cau se th e po ss es si on an d rece ip t ch arg es “ in vo lv e[d ]

di ffer en t fil es .” The di st ric t co ur t de ni e d Hil l’s ren ewed m ot io n to di sm is s a co un t

at tri al

.

Hil l’s th r ee da y tri al be ga n Sep te m be r 25

, 20 12

. The go ve rn m en t pr es en te d

te st im on y fro m th e in ve st ig at in g of fic ers an d th e fo ren si c ex am in er de sc rib in g th ei r

in te rv ie ws wi t h H i l l an d th e ch il d po rn og rap hy th ey fo un d on hi s co m pu te r. The

go ve rn m en t al so sh owe d th e st il l im ag es (Exh ib it s 4- 13

, 37 -4 0) an d pl ay ed a po rti on

of each of t he th ree v id eo s fr om Hil l’s co m

pu te r (Ex hi bi ts 41 -4 3) for th e jury.

Mai nt ai ni ng hi s in no cen ce, Hil l to ok th e st an d in hi s own d e f e ns e.

Une m pl oyed aft er lo si ng hi s job in th e te ch ni cal su pp or t di vi si on of AT&T Mo bi li ty,

Hil l ex pl ai ne d he su pp le m en te d hi s i nc om e reb ui ld in g an d rep ai rin g br ok en

co m pu t e r s wit h co m

po ne nt pa rts

. As to th e se iz ed co m pu te r co nt ai ni ng ch il d

po rn og rap hy, Hil l te st ifi ed he ha d rep la ced th e RAM, th e ha rd dr i v e , t h e vi de o

pr oc es so r, th e CD dr iv e, an d th e po wer so ur ce. Hil l al so te st ifi ed he was a “ ga m er,”

m ean in g he pl ay ed in te ract iv e vi de o ga m es wit h ot he rs on li ne

. Dis ti ng ui sh in g
be twee n hi s fam il ia rit y wit h ha rd ware an d hi s pu rp or te d ig no ran ce of so ftwa re, Hil l

te st ifi ed he lo ad ed Lim eWire on to h i s co m pu te r to do wnl oa d m

us ic an d ad ul t

po rn og rap hy bu t, con tra ry to th e of fic ers ’ te st im on y , de ni ed he kn ew th e Lim eWire

fil es he do wnl oa de d wer e au to m at ic al ly avai la bl e to ot he r Lim eWire u se rs

.

-4

-Hil l’s di rect ex amin at io n to ok an un ex pe ct ed tu rn

. Fo r th e fir st ti m e, Hil l

ad m it te d t o “ kn owi ng ly recei vi ng an d di st rib ut in g c hi ld po rn og rap hy inv ol vi ng th e

us e of m in or s en ga gi ng in se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t,” as ch arg ed in th e in di ct m en t,

an d in te nt io na ll y ob ta in in g th e im ag es sh own to th e jury. Bu t Hil l al so st at ed he on ly

vi ewed th e ch il d po rn og rap hy to pr ot ect hi s c hi ld ren —Hi ll ex pl ai ne d he was 4

in te nt io na ll y se arch in g fo r “ pr et een ” im ag es be cau se he th ou gh t an un id en ti fie d m an

at a pa rty m ay h av e ta ke n il li ci t pi ct ur es of hi s fo ur te en - an d si xt een -y ear- ol d

st ep da ug ht ers sh owe rin g. Tho ug h Hil l’s te en ag e st ep da ug ht ers were no t “ pr et een ,”

Hil l cl ai m ed he vi ewed m an y im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy an d t h e n d e l et ed th em
whe n he ve rif

ie d th ey di d no t in cl ud e hi s st ep da ug ht ers

. W he n con fro nt ed on cro ss

ex am in at io n wit h ti m in g in co ns is te nc ie s, Hil l te st ifi ed he ha d al so lo ok ed fo r im ag es

of a fam il y fri en d he ha d he lp ed aft er sh e was ex pl oi te d on li ne

. Hil l st at ed he co ul d

no t r e v i e w a l l of th e 26 6 su sp ect ed ch il d po rn og rap hy fil es he do wnl oa de d to hi s
sh ared fol de r be cau se he be cam e “ di sg us te d” an d “ si ck en ed of wh at [he ] ha d s een ”

an d “ co ul d no t co nt in ue .” Alt ho ug h Hil l la te r res um ed hi s s e arch

, he in si st ed he

de le te d or at te m

pt ed to de le te al l th e ch il d po rn og rap hy he do wnl oa de d an d vi ewed

.

Afte r de li be rat in g fo r ap pr ox im at el y fo ur ho ur s, th e jury co nv ic te d Hil l on bo th

co un ts

. In se pa rat e ve rd ic t fo rm s, th e jury fo un d Hil l (1 ) rece iv ed al l te n st il l im ag es

an d al l th ree vi de os fo u n d i n hi s sh ared fo ld er an d di st rib ut ed th e im ag es al l as

al le ge d in Co un t 1, an d (2 ) po ss es se d al l fo ur im ag es fo un d in hi s co m pu te r’s recycle

bi n a s a l l e g e d in Co un t 2. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Hil l’s ti m el y m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

. The di st r i c t c ou rt se nt en ced Hil l to co nc ur ren t te rm s of 14 4

m on th s fo r Co un t 1 an d 1 20 m on th s fo r Co un t 2 . Hill ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s.

Hil l al so ad m it te d to do wnl oa di ng an d vi ewin g on e of th e vi de os (Exh ib it 43 ) 4

be fo re del et in g it bu t de ni ed vi ewin g th e ot he r two (Exh ib it s 41 an d 42 ), th e fir st of
whi ch in vo lv ed a ch il d vi ct im who was k n o w n t o b e on ly te n or el ev en y ears ol d
whe n t he vi de o was pro du ced

.

-5

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Mot io n to Suppr es s

Hil l fir st co nt en d s t h 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
wit ho ut a he ari ng be cau se , in Hil l’s vi ew, Offi cer Sm it h vi ol at ed Hil l’s Fo ur th

Am en dm en t rig ht to be f r ee fro m un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es by acce ss in g

Hil l’s co m

pu t e r u s i ng pe er-t o- pe er so ftwa re an d do wnl oa di ng fil es fro m Hil l’s

Lim eWire sh ared f

o l d e r

. W e rev ie w t he di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Hil l’s “ m ot io n to

su pp res s de no vo , an d th e un de rlyin g fact ua l de te rm in at io ns fo r cl ear erro r.” Uni te d

St at es v. Bark er, 43 7 F.3 d 7 8 7

, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s

de ci si on whe th er to ho ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d

St at es v. Yi el di ng , 65 7 F .3d 68 8, 7 05 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

Hil l’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t arg um en ts co m pl et el y ig no re th e ho ld in g of Uni te d

St at es v. St ul ts

, 57 5 F.3 d 83 4, 84 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). In St ul ts

, we he ld a de fen da nt ha s

“ no reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f p r i v a c y in fil es

. . . ret rie ve d fro m hi s pe rs on al

co m pu te r whe re [th e de fen da nt ] ad m it te dl y in st al le d an d us ed Lim eWire to m ak e hi s

f i l e s acce ss ib le to ot he rs fo r fil e sh ari ng .” Id

. It di d no t m at te r th at th e de fen da nt

de ni ed kn owi ng ot he rs wou ld be ab le to acce ss hi s fil es be cau se th e de fen da nt kn ew

“ ‘he ha d fil e-s ha rin g so ftwa re on hi s co m pu te r’” an d ad m it te dl y do wnl oa de d m us ic

an d po rn og rap hy to hi s s ha red fol de r whe re o th er use rs , in cl ud in g law enfo rcem en t

of fic ers , ha d acce ss

. Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gan oe , 53 8 F.3d 11 17

, 11 27 (9 th

Ci r. 20 08 )).

The sa m e is tru e he re. Hil l ad m it te dl y do wnl oa de d an d act iv el y us ed

Lim eWire— fil e-s ha rin g so ftwa re th at m ad e th e sc or es of po rn og rap hy fil es in Hil l’s

sh ared fo ld er acce ss ib le to an y Lim eWire us er in th e wor ld

, in cl ud in g Offi cer Sm it h.

Li meWi re it se lf was a pu bl ic ly acce ss ib le pr og ram av ai la bl e fo r free do wnl oa d b y

an y on e wit h a co m

pu te r an d an in te rn et co nn ect io n. Hil l ha d no reas on ab le

ex pe ct at io n of pr iv ac y i n s u ch pu bl ic ly sh ared fil es an d “ ‘cann ot in vo ke th e

pr ot ect io ns of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Gan oe , 53 8 F.3 d at 11 27 ). The

-6

-di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n or ot he rwis e err in de nyin g Hil l’s m ot io n to

su pp res s wit ho ut a h e a r i ng

. See Yiel di ng , 65 7 F.3 d at 70 5 (“ A di st ric t co ur t

pr es en te d wit h a m ot io n to su pp res s ne ed no t ho ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng as a m at te r

of co ur se , an d a he ari ng is un ne ces sa ry if th e di st ric t co ur t c a n d e t e rm in e th at

su pp res si on is un warra nt ed as a m at te r of law.”)

.

B. Dou bl e J eo pa rdy

Hil l ne xt co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in refu si ng to di sm is s o ne co un t of

th e in di ct m en t on do ub le jeop ard y gr ou nd s. See Uni te d St at es v. Mu hl en br uc h, 63 4

F.3 d 98 7, 10 03 -0 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (co nc lu di ng po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy un de r

18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B) is a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se of rece iv in g ch il d po rn og rap hy

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) whe n “ ba se d on th e ‘sam e act or tra ns act io n’” (q uo ti ng

Bl oc kb ur g e r v

. U n i t ed St at es , 28 4 U.S. 29 9, 30 4 (1 93 2) )). The Dou bl e Je op ard y
Cl au se of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t pr ot ect s a cri m in al de fen d a n t f r om “ m ul ti pl e

pu ni sh m en ts fo r th e sa m e cri m in al of fen se .” Uni te d St at es v. Ben ne tt

, 44 F.3 d 13 64

, 13 68 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ). W e rev ie w de no vo th e de ni al of a m ot io n to di sm is s on e co un t

of th e in di ct m en t “ on th e gr ou nd s o f do ub le jeop ard y .” Id

. To est ab li sh hi s do ub le
jeop ard y cl ai m , Hil l m

us t sh ow Co un t 1 an d Co un t 2 “ are in la w an d fact th e sa m e

of fen se .” Id . This he can no t d o.

W it h ju s t o n e ex cep ti on , th e jury’ s gu il ty ve rd ic ts fo r Co un t 1 an d Co un t 2

were ba se d on di ffer en t vi su al de pi ct io ns of ch il d po rn og rap hy. On Co un t 1, th e jury

fo un d Hil l rece iv ed th e te n im ag es an d th ree vi de os fo un d in Hil l’s Lim eWire sh ared

fo ld er an d di st rib ut ed th e sa m e te n im ag es

. On Co un t 2, th e jury fo un d Hil l po ss es se d

th e fo ur im ag es fo un d i n H i ll ’s recycle bi n, th ree of whi ch were di ffer en t fro m th e

im ag es ch arg ed in Co un t 1. Bec au se th e jury sp eci fic al ly fo un d Hil l gu il ty ba se d on
di ffer en t fact s an d im ag es fo r each co un t, th e jury di d no t co nv ic t Hil l “ ‘of rece iv in g [an d di st rib ut i ng ] th e sa m e im ag es th at he was al so fo un d to ha ve po ss es se d,’ an d

-7

-th us no do ub le je op ard y vi ol at io n oc cu rred .” Uni te d St at es v. Man ni ng , 73 8 F.3 d 5

93 7, 94 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Huet he r, 67 3 F.3 d 78 9, 79 8 (8 th

Ci r. 20 12 )).

C. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence

Fi na ll y , Hil l as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t

of acq ui tt al on bo th co un ts

, arg ui ng th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t hi m

. See

Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 29 (a). W e rev ie w de no vo th e de ni al of Hil l’s m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t

of acq u i t t a l

. S ee Uni te d St at es v. Lan ds do wn, 73 5 F.3 d 80 5, 80 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ).

“ W e vi ew th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fa v o r a b l e to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng

ev id en ti ary co nf

li ct s in fav or of th e go ve rn m en t, an d acc e p ti ng al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es dr awn fro m th e ev id en ce th at su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v.

Co ok

, 60 3 F.3 d 43 4, 43 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ W e m ay rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le jury

co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d St at es v.

W as hi ng to n, 3 18 F.3d 84 5, 8 52 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

1. Pos se ss io n

In Hil l’s vi ew, th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e Hil l kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e

fo ur im ag es fo un d in hi s co m pu te r’s recycle b i n ( Ex h i b it s 37 -4 0)

. Hil l’s arg um en t

i s b a s ed on hi s m is ta ke n be li ef th at th e im ag es fo un d in hi s recycle bi n were fo u n d

in “ un al lo cat ed sp ace” on hi s ha rd dr iv e an d Hil l co ul d no t acce ss or co nt ro l th os e

fil es wit ho ut sp eci al to ol s Hi ll di d n ot ha ve . Hill ’s bel ie f is be li ed by the reco rd

.

Age nt Kan at zar te st ifi ed th e fo ur im ag es en te red in to ev id en ce as Exh ib it s 37

, 38 , 39

, an d 40

, an d fou nd by the jury to su pp or t co nv ic ti ng Hil l o f po ss es si ng ch il d

To th e ex te nt H i l l mi g h t h av e arg ue d th e sa m e im ag e ch arg ed as Exh ib it 10 5

in Co un t 1 an d Exh ib it 40 in Co un t 2 crea te d an is su e, we co nc lu de an y ov erl ap “ do es

no t affect [Hil l’s] su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s” an d is ha rm le ss gi ve n th e jury’ s sp eci fic gu il ty

ve rd ic ts wit h res pe ct to al l of th e ot he r di st in ct im ag es an d vi de os ch arg ed in Co un t
1 a nd Co un t 2 , res pe ct iv el y . Fed . R. Cri m . P. 52 (a).

-8

-po rn og rap hy as ch arg ed in Co un t 2, were st il l in Hil l’s recycle bi n whe n th e of fic ers

se iz ed Hil l’s co m

pu te r. Unl ik e “ un al lo cat ed sp ace,” th e recycle bi n is an acce ss ib le

fo ld er on th e co m

pu te r’s ha rd dr iv e “ in whi ch a us er pl aces fil es to be de le te d.” 6

Uni te d St at es v. Tuc ke r, 30 5 F.3 d 11 93

, 11 98 n.8 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 02 ). “ Pl acement in th e
bi n do es no t au to m at ic al ly de le te fil es , ho wev er.” Uni te d St at es v. W al se r, 27 5 F.3 d

98 1, 98 4 n.4 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 01 ). “[R ]e mo v al of fil es fr om th e recycle bi n ge ne ral ly

req ui res m an ua l st ep s to be ta ke n by th e us er.” Uni te d St at es v. Ro m m , 45 5 F.3 d 99 0,

99 3 n.2 (9 th Ci r. 2 0 0 6 )

. I n ot he r wor ds

, a fil e in th e recycle bi n co ul d ha ve be en
ei th er p erm an en tl y

de le te d o r res to red to it s o rig in al lo cat io n, at Hil l’s d is cret io n.

Hil l m ay ha ve “ tri ed to ge t rid of ” th e ch il d po rn og rap hy he do wnl oa de d to hi s

ha rd dr iv e, bu t he ne ve r em pt ie d th e f

ou r fil es fro m hi s recycle bi n an d th us ne ve r
rel eg at ed th em to un al lo cat ed sp ace. The im ag es re mai ne d in hi s recycle bi n,

acce ss ib le to Hil l an d su bjec t to hi s do m in io n an d co nt ro l wit ho ut an y sp eci al to ol s.
The jury co ul d reas on ab ly in f e r H i l l’s “ in te nt io na l at te m pt to de le te ch il d

po rn og rap hy fil es , su ch as by pl aci ng th em in [h is ] c om pu te r’s recycle bi n,

. . . su gg es t[e d] he was aware of th e fil es an d th ei r co nt en ts .” Uni te d St at es v. Bret on , 74 0 F.3 d 1, 17 (1 st Ci r. 20 14 ). In de ed

, Hil l— no st ran ge r to co m pu te rs —ad m it te d he

act iv el y so ug ht ch il d po rn og rap hy on Lim eWi r e u si ng ve ry sp eci fic se arch te rm s,

in te nt io na ll y do wnl oa de d im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy, vi ewed th os e il le ga l im ag es ,

an d ev en tu al ly de le te d so m e of th em , be fo re se arch in g fo r m or e im ag es

. F o u r of

th os e il le ga l i m ag es rem ai ne d i n hi s recycle bi n whe n of fic ers se iz ed hi s co m

pu te r.

A reas on ab le jury co ul d co nv ic t H i l l o f kn owi ng ly po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy. 7

“ Una ll oc at ed sp ace is sp ace on a ha rd dr iv e th at co nt ai ns de le te d da ta

, us ua ll y 6

emp ti ed fr om th e op er at in g sy st em’s tr as h or re cycl e bi n fo ld er , th at can no t be se en

or acce ss ed by th e us er wit ho ut th e us e of fo ren si c so ftwa re. Su ch sp ace is av ai la bl e
to be writ te n o ve r to st or e ne w i nf or m at io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Fl y er, 63 3 F.3 d 9 11

, 91 8 (9 th Cir . 20 11 ) (em

ph as is ad de d)

.

Bec au se th e il le ga l im ag es were in Hil l’s recycle bi n, w e n e ed no t de ci de 7

whe th er im ag es of ch il d po rnogr aphy fo un d in un al lo cat ed sp ace or th e br ows er cach e

-9

-See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. W or th ey , 71 6 F.3 d 11 07

, 11 13 -1 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Ko ch , 62 5 F .3d 47 0, 4 78 -7 9 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

2. Recei pt a nd Dis tri buti on
The ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al was al so m or e th an su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t Hil l of

kn owi ng ly rece iv ing an d dis tr ib ut in g ch il d po rn og rap hy. At tri al

, Hil l un eq ui vo cal ly 8

co nf es se d to “ kn owi n gl y rece iv in g an d di st rib ut in g ch il d po rn og rap hy” as ch arg ed

in th e in di ct m en t an d in te nt io na ll y us in g Lim eWire to do wnl oa d an d vi ew th e im ag es

an d on e of th e vi de os fo r whi ch he was co nv ic te d. Hil l cl ai m ed he se arch ed fo r an d

do wnl oa de d ch il d po rn og rap hy in an il l-c on cei ve d pl an to pr ot ect hi s st ep da ug ht ers ,

no t kn owi ng th e fil es in hi s Lim eWire sh ared fo ld er wou ld be ac c e s s i b l e to ot he r

us ers

. Bu t th e jury was no t ob li ga te d t o a c c ep t Hil l’s ad m it te dl y irr at io na l
jus ti fic at io ns an d be l a t e d c la im s of ig no ran ce. “ [Q]ues ti on s co nc ern in g th e
cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es , whe re th ei r te st im on y is no t in cred ib le on it s face

, are fo r th e jury to de ci de .” Uni te d St a t e s v

. S am ue ls

, 54 3 F.3 d 10 13

, 10 19 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ).

Hil l’s ex pl ic it de sc rip ti on of hi s own co ns id erab le co m pu te r ab il it ie s an d di st ur bi ng

se arch ha bi ts

, co m

bi ne d wit h th e in ve st ig at in g of fic ers ’ de ta il ed te st im on y reg ard in g

Hil l’s in cu lp at or y st at em en ts

, wou ld al lo w a reas on ab le jury to di sm is s Hil l’s du bi ou s
cl ai m s o f in no cen ce.

Eve n wit ho ut Hil l’s da m ni ng wit ne ss -s ta nd co nf es si on , th e ev id en ce of

kn owi ng rece ip t an d di st rib ut io n was ov erwh el m in g. Hil l to ld th e in v e s ti ga ti ng

wou ld su pp or t a ve rd ic t of kn owi ng ly po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e. See Uni te d St at es v. McArt hu r, 57 3 F.3 d 60 8, 61 4- 15 (8 th
Ci r. 20 09 ) (d et erm in in g, on th e cas e fact s, im ag es fo un d in un al lo cat ed sp ace

su pp or te d c on vi ct io n)

.

Hil l’s argu m en ts pr im ari ly fo cu s on di st rib ut io n, bu t a de fen da nt can vi ol at e 8

18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) by “ kn owi ng ly rece iv [in g], or di st rib ut [in g]” c h il d

po rn og rap hy. (Em

ph as is ad de d)

. Here, th e jury reas on ab ly fo un d th e ev id en ce

su ffi ci en t t o fi nd Hil l g ui lt y of v io la ti ng § 2 25 2( a)(2 ) bo th way s.

-1 0-of

fic ers he in te nt io na ll y se arch ed fo r an d do wnl oa de d at le as t on e hu nd red im ag es of

ch il d po rn og rap hy fro m ot he r Lim eWire us ers ’ sh ared fo ld ers fo r m on th s. On Aug us t
3, 20 10

, Offi cer Sm it h do wnl oa de d te n su ch fil es fro m Hil l’s pu bl ic Lim eWire fo ld er.

Dur in g hi s fo ren si c ex am in at io n

, Age nt Kan at zar fo un d th ree m or e v i d e o s of ch il d

po rn og rap hy in Hil l’s sh ared fo ld er. The jury reas on ab ly co nv ic te d Hil l of kn owi ng ly

rece iv in g an d di st rib ut in g ch il d po rn og rap hy. See Uni te d St at es v. Co ll in s, 64 2 F.3 d

65 4, 65 6- 57 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (rec og ni zi ng us e of fil e-s ha rin g pr og ram an d kn owl ed ge

of co m pu te rs su pp or te d g ui lt y

ve rd ic t).

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm.

__

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

-1 1-