# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 23 14

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

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

ff - App el le e

v.

Dav id James Mar m on

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 Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 16 , 20 16 Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

3, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re KELLY and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and MAGNUSON, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

MAGNUSON, Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

The Hon or ab le Pau l A. Mag nu so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.A

ppe llan t Dav id Ja m es Mar m on ap pe al s se ve ral ev id en ti ary ru li ng s th e di st ric t

co ur t m ad e du rin g hi s tri al on ch il d- po rn og rap hy ch arg es

. Fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, 2
we affi rm

.

The Nor th Dak ot a Bu reau of Cri m in al In ve st ig at io n be ga n in ve st i g a t in g Mar m o n i n earl y 20 14
, aft er la w-en fo rcem en t so ftwa re reco rd ed th e IP ad dr es s fo r Mar m on ’s co m

pu ter dow nlo ad in g fil es co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy on pe er-t o- pe er (“ P2 P”) ne two rk s. The so ftwa re pr og ram reco rd ed Mar m on ’s co m pu te rs do wnl oa di ng fi l e s co nt ai ni ng co m m on ch il d- po rn og rap hy se arch te rm s su ch as

“ PTHC,” wh ic h s ta nd s fo r “ pr e-t een ha rd co re.”

Law en fo rcem en t se cu red a se arch warra nt fo r Mar m on ’s res id en ce in
W il li st on , Nor th Dak ot a. Dur in g th e ex ecu ti on of th e warra nt , la w en fo rcem en t

ex am in ed twen ty de vi ces , two co m pu te rs , an d an ex te rn al ha rd dr iv e, an d ul ti m at el y

se iz ed Mar m on ’s de sk to p c o mp ut er an d a la pt op fro m th e res id en ce. Offi cers al so in te rv ie wed Mar m on , an d he ad m it te d th at he ha d do w n l o ad ed an d vi ewed ch il d

po rn og rap hy. A fo ren si c ex am in at io n rev eal ed th at Mar m on ’s co m pu te rs di d in fact do wnl oa d m an y of th e sa m e fil es th e la w-en fo rcem en t so ftwa re reco rd ed th em do wnl oa di ng fro m th e P 2 P n e two rk s. In Ju ne 20 14 , a gr an d jury in di ct ed Mar m on

o n o n e co un t of rece ip t 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 o r s i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 52 (a)( 2) an d 2 25 2( b) (1 ).

Dur in g th e fo ur -d ay jury tri al
, th e Uni te d St at es in tro du ced
, ov er Mar m on ’s ob jecti on , a co m

pi la ti on of po rti on s of vi de os os te ns ib ly fo un d on M a r m on ’s

co m pu te rs

. Mar m on co nt en ds th at th e Gov ern m en t fai le d to es ta bl is h th at th e
mat e r ia l was in fact fo un d on hi s co m pu te rs , an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n al lo win g th e jury to vi ew th e vi de os

. Mar m on al so arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce ad du ced

at tri al was i ns uf

fic ie nt to co nv ic t h im

.

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t Ju dg e fo r th e 2 Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.
-2

-On Ja nu ary 15
, 20 16
, th e jury co nv ic te d Mar m on of th e si ng le ch arg e br ou gh t

ag ai ns t hi m

. On May 9, 20 16
, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Mar m on to th e te n- y ear

m an da to ry

m in im um ter m of i m pr is on m en t. Ma rm on ti m el y ap pe al ed

. 3

W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d gi vi ng th e ve rd ic t “ th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Spe ars , 45 4 F .3d 83 0, 8 32 (8t h C ir. 20 06 ). A rev ers al is warra nt ed “ on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y o n d a

reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

. The di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng s on ev id en ti ary is su es are rev ie wed fo r cl ear a bu se of d is cret io n. Un it ed Sta te s v . Om ar, 7 86 F.3d 11 04 , 11 12 (8 th Cir

. 20 15 ). W e wil l rev ers e “ on ly whe n an im pr op er ev id en ti a ry ru li ng affe ct ed th e de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s or ha d m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. And ers on , 78 3 F.3 d 72 7, 74 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hen le y , 76 6 F .3d 89 3, 9 14 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) ).

Mar m on fir st arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to c o n v i c t hi m of kn owi ng rece ip t of ch il d po rn og rap hy, co nt en di ng i n s t e ad th at th e ev id en ce

es ta bl is he d, at m os t, p os se ss io n o f ch il d po rn og rap hy. Bu t th e jury h eard ev id en ce th at Mar m on ad m it te d to in ve st ig at or s th at h e h a d do wnl oa de d ch il d po rn og rap hy.
Te s t im on y fro m th e in ve st ig at or reg ard in g Mar m on ’s co m pu te r se arch es an d th e im ag es fo un d on Ma r mo n ’s co m pu te rs co rro bo rat ed th is co nf es si on

. See Uni te d
St at es v. Bag ol a, 79 6 F.3 d 90 3, 90 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (fi nd in g th at co nf es si on su pp or te d by co rro bo rat in g ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on ). The ev id en ce at tri al

was m or e th an su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he jury’ s d et erm in at io n.

Nor di d th e di st ric t co ur t err in ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of ch il d- po rn og rap hy

m at eri al s fo un d in th e un al lo cat ed sp ace on Mar m on ’s co m pu te rs

. Alt ho ug h Mar m on

Alt ho ug h Mar m on li st s on ly on e is su e in hi s st at em en t of th e is su es on ap pe al
, 3 hi s b rie f arg ue s t he th ree is su es di sc us se d bel ow and se ve ral ot he rs

. The is su es no t ad dr es se d do no t m eri t an y fu rth er di sc us si on an d th e di st ric t co ur t is affi rm ed in al l

res pe ct s.

-3

-arg ue s th at he c o u ld no t ha ve acce ss ed th is un al lo cat ed sp ace wit ho ut sp eci al iz ed

so ftwa re, the Gov ern m en t’s ev id en ce es ta bl is he d t ha t t he se m at eri al s re si de d i n t he

un a l l o c a t e d sp ace be cau se Mar m on ha d tri ed to de le te th e m at eri al s fro m hi s

co m pu te rs be fo re th e se arch warra nt ’s ex ecu ti on

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n a dm it ti ng th es e m at eri al s.

Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t abu se it s di sc ret io n in al lo win g th e juro rs to

v i e w a c om

pi la ti on of th e ch il d- po rn og rap hy vi de o ex cerp ts fo un d on Mar m on ’s

co m pu te rs

. Mar m on arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l. B u t th is

co nt en ti on , wit ho ut a sh owi ng th at th e di st ric t c ou rt fai le d to weig h Ru le 40 3’s

req ui rem en ts , is in su ffi ci en t to al lo w us to co nc lu de th at t h e ad m is si on of th is

ev id en ce co ns ti tu te d an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. McC ou rt, 4 6 8 F.3 d
10 8 8
, 10 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). The re is no do ub t th at ch il d po rn og rap hy vi de os are in he ren tl y di st ur bi ng

. Bu t Ru le 40 3 pr ecl ud es un f a i r ly pr ejud ic ia l ev id en ce, no t

m erel y an y ev id en ce th at i s de tri m en ta l to a de fen da nt ’s cas e. Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 46 3 F.3 d 80 3, 80 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Mer el y be cau se th e ev id en ce is di st ur bi ng is no t reas on to ex cl ud e it

. McC ou rt, 46 8 F.3 d at 10 92

. Mar m on ha s fai le d

to es ta bl is h th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in al lo win g th is ev id en ce to be

pu bl is he d t o t he jury.

Affi rm ed

.

-4

-