2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-30-2011

USA v. John Fritz

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-4238

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. John Fritz" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 148.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/148
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 09-4238

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOHN HAMMES FRITZ, 

 Appellant

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 2-07-cr-00629-001)

District Judge: The Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

November 18, 2011

BEFORE: RENDELL, AMBRO, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: November 30, 2011)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge

While on probation from a 2006 conviction for possession of child pornography, a 

consensual search of Appellant John Fritz’s home computer revealed illicit images and 
2

movies containing child pornography. Subsequent forensic examination of the computer 

revealed over seven hundred images and over eighty movies.

Fritz was convicted on one count of possession of child pornography, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and one count of transporting child pornography, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). On appeal, Fritz challenges the sufficiency of the 

evidence used to convict him. We will affirm.

I.

Pursuant to the parole conditions of a 2006 possession of child pornography 

conviction, probation officer Mark Giordano searched Fritz’s home computer. 

Giordano’s initial search revealed both adult and child pornography. Fritz’s computer 

was confiscated along with two external hard drives.

Upon returning to his office, Giordano conducted a more in-depth examination of 

the computer, uncovering additional images of child pornography. A subsequent forensic 

examination by the United States Secret Service revealed over seven hundred images and 

more than eighty movies of child pornography. These files could only be accessed with a 

password. Fritz also sent more than 40 images of child pornography to another person 

over the internet. Evidence from the electronic monitoring device Fritz wore as a 

condition of his parole established when he came and went from his residence, supporting 

the conclusion that all of the pornography found on Fritz’s computer was downloaded 

while Fritz was at home. 

II.
3

On appeal, Fritz does not argue that the images of child pornography were not on 

his home computer; he maintains that he did not place them there. He submits that, in 

light of the testimony of witnesses who related that Fritz’s computer was in a location 

accessible by many, the Government’s evidence was insufficient to convict him. We 

disagree.

Fritz’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is “subject to a deferential 

standard . . . under which we construe all evidence in favor of the Government and will 

only reverse if ‘[no] reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of 

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Al-Ame, 434 F.3d 614, 616 (3d 

Cir. 2006) (alterations in the original) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 

(1979)).

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(5)(B), it is unlawful to knowingly possess any 

material that contains an image of child pornography that has been mailed, shipped, or 

transported in interstate commerce. Hence, the only issue with respect to the sufficiency 

of the evidence is whether Fritz knowingly possessed the images of child pornography. 

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, established that: (1) 

Fritz’s computer was located in his bedroom, which he occupied alone; (2) the computer 

in Fritz’s bedroom contained the files of child pornography which had been transferred 

from file-sharing sites to the computer on numerous occasions; (3) on the occasions that 

files containing child pornography were transferred from the file-sharing website to 

Fritz’s computer, electronic monitoring revealed that Fritz was in his residence; (4) the 

files were located on password-protected accounts on Fritz’s computer; and (5) a 
4

photograph of Fritz himself was found in one computer folder containing child 

pornography. 

At trial, Fritz maintained that his bedroom was “party central” and that he 

permitted others to use his computer and download material. To support his theory, Fritz 

presented the testimony of two witnesses. William Ashton testified that, while many 

people had access to Fritz’s computer, he never witnessed anyone viewing child 

pornography on it. Ashton further testified that he witnessed an unidentified person 

connecting a device to the USB port of Fritz’s computer. Christina Anderson also 

testified that she saw an individual named “Sean” download pornography while using 

Fritz’s computer. Anderson later modified her testimony, adding that the images she 

saw were of teen-aged females in various poses.

The Government countered this testimony by establishing, first, that the 

pornography on Fritz’s computer was not downloaded from a device attached to the USB 

port, but rather from the internet, and second, that the images Anderson viewed were not 

representative of those found on Fritz’s computer.

The jury is responsible for weighing the evidence and making credibility 

determinations. See United States v. Mercado, 610 F.3d 841, 845 (3d Cir. 2010). Here, 

the jury determined that the evidence established that Fritz possessed child pornography 

on his computer. When the evidence in this case is viewed “in the light most favorable to 

the Government with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in support of 

a conviction,” a rational trier of fact could have found Fritz guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Id. 
5

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the District Court’s judgment of conviction and 

sentence will be affirmed in all respects.