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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 5- 30 39

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

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.

Tho m as Zave sk y

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 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 6
Fil ed : Oct ob er 5 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es , and ERICKSON, Dis tri ct 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __
ERICKSON, Ch ie f Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Tho m as Zav es ky on on e co un t of rece ip t of ch ild porno gr ap hy

i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 52 (a)( 2)

, 22 52 (b )(1 ), an d 22 56 an d on e co un t of

The Hon or ab le Ral ph R. Eric ks on , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy in v i ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 52 (a)( 4) (B),

22 52 (b )(2 ), an d 22 56

. He ap pe al s, cl ai m i n g h is du e pr oc es s rig ht s were vi ol at ed

be cau se he was no t pr es en t or gi v e n n ot ic e whe n th e di st ric t co ur t or de red hi m to

un de rg o a co m

pe te nc y ex am in at io n, hi s rig ht to a sp eed y tri al was vi ol at ed

, hi s

co nv ic ti on s fo r rece ip t an d po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy vi ol at e do ub le jeop ard y ,

an d t he di st ric t co ur t er red in de nyin g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s. We affir m

.

I. Bac kg ro un d

Zav es ky cam e to th e at te nt io n of la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers whe n th ey no ti ced

,

as pa rt of th ei r in ve st ig at io ns on In te rn et ch il d po rn og rap hy, wh at ap pe ared t o be a
si ng le co m

pu te r sh ari ng ch il d po rn og rap hy at di ffer en t IP ad dr es se s. Thro ug h th e us e

of su bp oe na s, th e in ve st ig at in g of fic ers le arn ed th at Zav es ky was em pl oyed as a tru ck

dr iv er, th at Zav es ky’ s em

pl oyer was a bu si ne ss us in g on e of th e IP ad dr es se s, an d th at

Zav es ky had be en ne ar t he va rio us IP lo cat io ns th at cau gh t t he off ic ers ’ at te nt io n.

Upo n le arn in g fro m Zav es ky’ s em pl oye r w h en an d whe re Zav es ky was

sc he du le d to be in Io wa, two sp eci al ag en ts wit h th e Io wa Div is io n o f Cri m in al

In ve st ig at io ns lo cat ed Zav es ky si tt in g in hi s park ed se m i-t ru ck

. W he n ap pr oa ch ed

, th e ag en ts no ti ced th e sm el l of m ari juan a em an at in g fro m th e tru ck an d ob se rv ed pa rt

of a m ari juan a pi pe in t h e t r u c k an d a la pt op co m pu te r th at was op en an d ap pe ared

to be tu rn ed on si tt in g on th e pa ss en ge r’s se at

. One of th e ag en ts ad vi se d Zav es k y
th at th ey were co nd uc ti ng an in ve st ig at io n, as ke d whe th er he wou ld be wil li ng to ta lk

to th em , an d in fo rm ed Zav es ky th at he was no t un de r arre st

. Zav es ky ex it ed hi s se m itru ck an d a gr eed to si t i n t he fro nt pa ss en ge r’s se at of t ha t ag en t’s v eh ic le

.

Onc e in si de th e ag en ts ’ ve hi cl e, Za v e s k y w a s ag ai n ad vi se d th at he was no t

un de r arre st an d he di d no t ha ve to ta lk to th e ag en ts

. The ag en t m ad e su re th e do or

was un lo ck ed so Zav es ky co ul d le av e if he wan te d. Zav es ky be ga n an swe rin g

qu es ti on s, cu t of

f th e in te rv ie w aft er a sh or t ti m e, le ft th e a ge nt s’ ve hi cl e, walk ed

to ward th e se m i-t ru ck , ret ur ne d a sh or t t im e la te r, an d re in it ia te d con ve rs at io n with

-2

-an ag en t who was no w st an di ng by the tru nk of h is ve hi cl e. W he n Zaves ky le ft th e

ag en ts ’ ve hi cl e, he was to ld he co ul d no t go ba ck in si de hi s se m i-t ru ck ou t of co nc ern
ab ou t th e co nt en ts on th e co m pu te r an d whe th er Zav es ky was un de r th e in flu en ce gi ve n t he st ro ng od or of m ari juan a o bs erv ed by the ag en ts

.

Afte r ob se rv in g Zav e s k y, t h e ag en t de te rm in ed th at he di d no t ap pe ar to be

un de r th e in flu e n ce. W he n Zav es ky res um ed ta lk in g to th e ag en ts by th e tru nk of

th ei r car, Zav es ky le arn ed th at th ey wan te d to ta lk ab ou t th e fil es on hi s co m pu te r.

Zav es k y w a s w i l li ng to ta lk ab ou t th at to pi c, an d ad m it te d to hi s kn owl ed ge ab ou t

f i l e

- sh ari ng pr og ram s an d es ti m at ed he ha d 2,8 00 im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy.

Zav es ky refu se d to ta lk ab ou t a m ot el th eft th at he th ou gh t th ey co ul d be in ve st ig at in g

or th e m ari

juan a th at was fo un d un de rn eat h hi s se m i-t ru ck

, an d de cl in ed to gi ve th e

pa ss wor d fo r hi s co m

pu te r.

One of th e ag en ts th en le ft th e sc en e to ge t a se arch wa r r a n t fo r th e la pt op

co m pu te r. A se arch warra nt was ob ta in ed

. A fo ren si c ex am in at io n un co ve red ch il d

po rn og rap hy, whi ch le ad to th e ch arg es in th is cas e. Zav es ky ap pe ared on th e ch arg es

on Decem

be r 30 , 20 13

. Bet ween Feb ru ary 20 14 an d S ep te m be r 11 , 20 14 , Zave sk y

req ue st ed th e tr ia l b e co nt in ue d fi ve ti m es , whi ch th e co ur t g ran te d.

On Sep te m

be r 11

, 20 14

, th e di st ric t co ur t h el d a te le ph on ic sc he du li ng

co nf eren ce. Zav es ky di d no t pa rti ci pa te bu t hi s la wy er ap pe are d o n h i s be ha lf an d

ex pr es se d co nc ern s ab ou t Zav es ky’ s m en ta l co nd it io n an d co m pe te nc y

. Zav es ky’ s

la wy er in di cat ed he was ha vi ng di ffi cu lt y co m m un ic at in g wit h Zav es ky an d Zav es ky

be li ev ed he was wor ki ng fo r th e Fed eral Bu reau of In ve st ig at io ns to st op th e Ru ss ia n

m afi a fro m br in gi ng ch il d po rn og rap hy in to th e Uni te d St at es

. Zav es ky’ s la wy er al so

rep or te d th at a fam il y m em be r in di cat ed Zav es ky ha d a hi st or y of m en ta l il ln es s. The

di st ric t co ur t or de red Zav es ky tra n s ferr ed fro m pr et ria l co nf in em en t to th e cu st od y
of Bu reau of P ris on s fo r a co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on

.

-3

-Zav es ky refu se d to co op erat e wit h an y m en ta l he al th te st in g or in te rv ie ws. The

ev al ua to r op in ed th at Za v e s ky was co m pe te nt to pr oc eed an d th at Zav es ky’ s

st at em en ts ab ou t th e Ru ss ia n m afi a w e r e l i k el y an at te m pt to m ak e ex cu se s an d

ex pl ai n hi s cri m in al co nd uc t. Afte r co m pl et io n of th e ev al ua ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t

res et th e cas e b ack on th e tr ia l ca le nd ar.

Zav es ky t he n m ov ed to su pp res s t he st at em en ts he m ad e to th e ag en ts on th e

gr ou nd s th at th ere was a “ de fact o arre st ” an d Zav es ky was il le ga ll y se iz ed whe n he

was to ld he co ul d le av e bu t co ul d no t ge t ba ck in hi s se m i-t ru ck

. Zav es ky al so arg ue d

th at th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed fro m th e se m i-t ru ck m us t be su pp res se d as it was “ fru it s”

ev id en ce ob ta in ed as a res ul t of th e un co ns ti tu ti on al se iz ur e. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

hi s m ot io n to su pp res s, fin di ng th ere was pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e se m i-t ru ck an d

Zav es ky was n ot in cu st od y when he pro vi de d t he st at em en ts to th e ag en ts

.

Zav es ky pr oc eed ed to tri al on Ju ne 8, 20 15

. A jury co nv ic te d hi m on on e co un t

of rece ip t of ch il d po rn og rap hy an d on e co un t of po ss es si on of ch il d p o r n o g rap hy.

H e w a s s en te nc ed to a te rm of 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t fo r rece ip t of c h i l d

po rn og rap hy and a co nc ur ren t term of 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t fo r po ss es si on of

ch il d p or no gr ap hy.

II. Dis cu ss io n

On ap pe al

, Zav es ky arg ue s th ere was no reas on ab le cau se to or de r a m en ta l

co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on , an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s co m m it ta l fo r su ch an ev al ua ti on
wit ho ut no ti ce to hi m vi ol at ed du e p r oc es s an d hi s rig ht to a sp eed y tri al

. He al so

arg ue s h is co nv ic ti on s for bo th rece ip t and po ss es si on of c hi ld po rn og rap hy vio la te

do ub le jeop ard y be cau se th e jury us ed th e sa m e e v i d e n c e to co nv ic t hi m on bo th

co un ts

, an d th e d i s t r i c t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to su pp res s be cau se hi s

st at em en ts to la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers were ba se d on an im pe rm is si bl e se iz ur e of hi s

pe rs on an d th e ev i d e n c e ob ta in ed fro m hi s se m i-t ru ck was “ fru it of th e po is on ou s

tre e.”

-4

-A. Co mpe te nc y Eva lu at io n

Zav es ky as se rts th at hi s st at ut or y rig ht s to no ti ce an d pr es en ce un de r 18 U.S.C.
§ 42 41 (a) were vi ol at ed whe n he was co m m it te d f o r an in pa ti en t co m

pe te nc y

ev al ua ti on du rin g a sc he du li ng co nf eren ce in whi ch he was no t pres en t an d wit ho ut

no t i c e th at hi s la wy er wou ld be req ue st in g an ev al ua ti on

. Zav es ky al so as se rts th e
di st ric t co ur t’s co m

m it ta l pr oc es s vi ol at ed his Fi fth Am en dm en t du e pr oc es s rig ht an d

th e Si xt h Am en dm en t s pe ed y tri al rig ht

.

W he n a n i ss ue su rro un di ng a de fen da nt ’s com pe te nc y to st an d t ria l i s ra is ed

, th e di st ric t co ur t m

us t fo ll ow th e pr oc es s s e t f o r th in 18 U.S.C. § 42 41

. A di st ric t

co ur t h as a du ty to o rd er a co m pe te nc y he ari ng as f

ol lo ws:

At an y ti m e aft er th e co m

m en cem en t of a pr os ecu ti on fo r an of fen se an d

pr io r to th e se nt en ci ng of th e de fen da nt

, th e de fen da nt or th e at to rn ey fo r th e Gov ern m en t m ay fil e a m ot io n fo r a he ari ng to de te rm in e th e m en ta l

co m pe te nc y of th e de fen da nt

. The co ur t sh al l gr an t th e m ot io n, or sh al l

or de r su ch a he ari ng o n i t s own m ot io n, if th ere is reas on ab le cau se to be li ev e th at th e de fen da nt m ay pr es en tl y be su ffer in g fro m a men ta l
di se as e or de fect ren de rin g hi m m en ta ll y in co m pe te nt to th e ex te nt th at he is un ab le to un de rs ta nd th e na tu re an d co ns eq ue nc es of th e
pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t h im

or t o a ss is t p ro pe rly in h is de fen se

.

18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (a). The co ur t m a y o r de r a de fen da nt to un de rg o a ps y ch ia tri c or

ps y ch ol og ic al ex am in at io n an d req ui re th at a rep or t be fil ed wit h th e co ur t be fo re th e
da te of th e he ari ng

. 18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (b ). Pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. §4 24 7( b)

, th e co ur t

m ay co m m it th e de fen da nt fo r an ex am in at io n un de r § 42 41 “ fo r a reas on ab le pe rio d,

bu t n ot to ex ceed th irt y

da y s.”

If th e co ur t ho ld s a co m pe te nc y he ari ng , th e he ari ng m us t be co nd uc te d

pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 7( d) . 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 1( c). Und er § 42 47 (d ):

-5

-The pe rs on who se m en ta l co nd it io n is th e su bjec t of th e he ari ng sh al l be

rep res en te d by co un se l.

. . . The pe rs on sh al l be affo rd ed th e op po rtu ni ty

to te st ify, to pr es en t ev id en ce, to su bp oe na wit ne ss es on hi s be ha lf, an d

to co nf ro nt an d c ro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es who ap pe ar at th e h eari ng

.

A di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to or de r a co m pe te nc y ev a l u a t i o n is rev ie wed for

ab us e of di sc r e t i o n

. Uni te d St at es v. Tu rn er , 64 4 F.3 d 71 3, 72 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ).

Defen da nt ’s co un se l’s op in io n o n c o mpet en cy sh ou ld rece iv e “ si gn ifi can t weig ht

si nc e ‘cou ns el

, pe rh ap s m or e th an an y ot he r pa rty or t h e c o u rt, is in a po si ti on to

ev al ua te a de fen da nt ’s ab il it y to un de rs ta nd th e pr oc eed in gs .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Dent on , 43 4 F .3d 11 04 , 11 12 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) ).

W he th er to or de r a co m

pe te nc y ev al ua ti on pr io r to a he ari ng un de r § 42 41 (b )

is di sc ret io na ry

. The re is ne it he r a st at ut or y req ui rem en t of no ti ce to a de fen da nt

, no r
is t h e de fen da nt ’s pr es en ce req ui red whe n th e ev al ua ti on is or de red

. A co ur t m ay

m ak e a “ reas on ab le cau se ” de te rm in at io n wit ho ut a he ari ng

. Se e Kr up ni ck v. Uni te d

St at es , 26 4 F.2 d 21 3, 2 1 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 59 ); Uni te d St at es v. Ja cks on , 17 9 F. App ’x

92 1, 93 2 (6 th Ci r. 20 06 ); Uni te d S t a te s v. McEac he rn , 46 5 F.2 d 83 3, 83 7 (5 th Ci r.

19 72 ). The s ta tu to ry

rig ht to no ti ce an d an op po rtu ni ty t o be he ard ari se s wh en th e
di st ric t co ur t is ta sk ed wit h m ak in g a de te rm in at io n on w h e t h er a de fen da nt is

co m pe te nt to pro ceed . 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 1( c), (d ), an d § 42 47 (d ).

Defen se co un se l ex pr es se d co nc ern to th e di st ric t co u r t th at he was ha vi ng
di ffi cu lt y co m

m un ic at in g wit h Zav es ky, an d th at Zav e s k y was de lu si on al ba se d on

hi s cl ai m th at he was in ve st ig at in g ch il d p o r n o g r a ph y act iv it ie s fo r th e FBI.

Zav es ky’ s s i st er al so rep or te d to co un se l th at Zav es ky su ffer ed fro m so m e m en ta l

he al th is su es aft er hi s ch il d di ed

, whi ch was ab ou t fiv e y ears be fo re th e tri al

. On th is

reco rd

, th e in fo rm at io n be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t was su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h reas on ab le

cau se to in ve st ig at e fu rth er Zav es ky’ s m en ta l co m pe te nc y

.

-6

-Turn in g to Zav es ky’ s co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s, a di st ric t co ur t’s au th or it y to

co m m it a pe rs on to th e Bu reau of Pri so ns fo r an in pa ti en t com pe te nc y ev al ua ti on is

su bjec t to du e pr oc es s req ui rem en ts

. Uni te d St at es v. Nea l

, 67 9 F.3 d 73 7, 74 0- 41 (8 th

Ci r. 20 12 ). At it s h e a r t

, d ue pr oc es s req ui res “ th e op po rtu ni ty to be he ard ‘at a

m ean in gf ul ti m e an d in a m ean in gf ul m an ne r.’” Mat he ws v. Eld ri dg e , 42 4 U.S. 31 9,

33 3 (1 97 6) (q uo ti ng Arms tr on g v. Man zo , 38 0 U.S. 54 5, 55 2 (1 96 5) ). Zav es ky was

rep res en te d by co un se l at t h e he ari ng whe n th e di st ric t co ur t or de red Zav es ky

co m m it te d fo r a co m

pe te nc y ev al ua ti on

. W hi le th e pr efer red pr act ic e wou ld in cl ud e

th e pr es en ce of th e de fen da nt whe n it ap pe ars li ke ly th at th e de fen da nt an d th e la wy er

are at od ds ab ou t th e ne ces si ty of a co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on , un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces

of th is cas e, th e pr oc es s an d pr oc ed ur es un de rta ke n by t he di st ric t co ur t were

su ffi ci en t t o s at is fy

th e m in im

um req ui rem en ts of t he Due P ro ces s C la us e.

Eve n a s su m in g du e pr oc es s req ui res so m et hi ng m or e th an wha t th e di st ric t

co ur t di d in Zav es ky’ s cas e, “ [i]t ha s lo ng be en cl ear th at co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns can
be su bjec t to ha rm le ss erro r an al y si s.” Lu fk in s v. Lea

pl ey , 96 5 F.2 d 14 77

, 14 80 (8 th

Ci r. 19 92 ) (ci ti ng Ch ap man v

. C a l i fo rn ia

, 38 6 U.S. 18

, 22 (1 96 7) ). Co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io ns oc cu rri ng du rin g a cri m i n a l pr oc eed in g are di vi de d in to two cat eg or ie s:

tri al erro rs a n d s t ru ct ur al de fect s. Ari zo na v. Ful min an te

, 49 9 U.S. 27 9, 30 7- 10
(1 99 1)

. A tri al erro r is an erro r th at can “ be qu an ti ta ti ve ly as se ss ed in th e co nt ex t of

ot he r ev id en ce pr es en te d,” an d is su bjec t to ha rm le ss -e r r o r a n a lysis

. Id

. at 30 7- 08

. A st ru ct ur al de fect “ affe ct [s ] t he fram ewo rk wit hi n whi ch th e tri al pr oc eed s, rat he r

th an si m pl y an erro r in th e tri a l pr oc es s it se lf” an d th us “ de f[i es ] an al y si s by

‘harm le ss -err or ’ st an da rd s.” Id

. at 30 9- 10

. A st ru ct ur al de fect is “ th e ex cep ti on an d

no t th e ru le .” Ros e v. Cl ar k

, 47 8 U.S. 57 0, 57 8- 79 (1 9 8 6 )

. As reco gn iz ed by th e

Su pr em e Co ur t, “ m os t co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs can be ha rm le ss .” Ful min an te

, 49 9 U.S.

at 30 6.

-7

-Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces , Zav es ky’ s as se rte d la ck of no ti ce an d op po rtu ni ty

to be pe rs on al ly he ard wou ld co ns ti tu te

, at m os t, a tri al erro r. Eve n as su m in g a

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, Zav es ky has no t dem on st rat ed pr ejud ic e th at res ul te d fr om

th e co m m it ta l pr oc e s s

. Fo ll owi ng th e ev al ua ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d Zav es ky

co m pe te nt to pr oc eed

. To th e ex te nt th ere was any in fo rm at io n gat he red du rin g th e

co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on , it was no t us e d ag ai ns t Zav es ky ei th er at tri al or at

s en te nc in g. Fi na ll y , Zav es ky pr oc eed ed to tri al an d he ha s no t po in te d to a n y

ev id en ce th at was un av ai la bl e be cau se he was req ui red to un de rg o a co m pe te nc y

ev al ua ti on . Any

tri al erro r un de r th es e p art ic ul ar ci rcu m st an ces was h arm le ss

.

Zav es ky co nt en ds th at th e co m m it ta l pr oc es s vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to a sp eed y tri al

. Ass es sm en t un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t fo r a sp eed y tri al vi ol at io n in cl ud es

co n s i d e r a t i on of th e le ng th of th e de la y , th e reas on s fo r th e de la y , th e de fen da nt ’s

as se rti on of hi s rig ht to a sp eed y tri al

, an d pr ejud ic e to th e de fen da nt

. Uni te d St at es

v. Sp ro ut s , 28 2 F.3 d 10 37

, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). In th i s c a s e , t h e r e was an

ap pr ox im at e fiv e-m on th de la y be twee n th e da te th e c o mp et en cy ev al ua ti on was

or de red an d whe n Zav es ky was ag ai n av ai la b l e f o r tri al

. Befo re th at

, Zav es ky

req ue st ed fiv e co nt in ua nc es of th e tri al

. Afte r th e co m pe te nc y ev a l u a ti on , de fen se

co un se l w a s gr an te d pe rm is si on to wit hd raw an d ne w co un se l was ap po in te d,

res ul ti ng in an ot he r co nt in ua nc e. Tria l pr oc eed e d ap pr ox im at el y fo ur m on th s aft er

th e d is tri ct co ur t fo un d Zav es ky com pe te nt to pro ceed

.

Dur in g th e co ur se of th is cas e, Zav e sk y m an ag ed to wor k th ro ug h th ree
di ffer en t la wy ers , each of wh o m were req ui red to be co m e fam il ia r wit h Zav es ky’ s

cas e. The m ot io ns to co nt in ue were at Zav es ky’ s req ue st

. Zav es ky ha s no t id en ti fie d

an y pr ejud ic e cau se d by an y pe rio d of de la y

. U n d e r a ll th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e

ap pr ox im at e 18 -m on th de la y be twee n whe n Zav es ky ap pe ared o n t h e ch arg es an d

tri al co m m en ced do es no t ri se to th e le ve l o f a Si xt h Am en dm en t v io la ti on

.

-8

-Fi na ll y , th e Sp eed y Tr i a l Act sp eci fic al ly ex cl ud es fro m co ns id erat io n de la y

r e s ul ti ng fro m an ex am in at io n to de te rm in e m en ta l co m pe te nc y

. 18 U.S.C. §

31 61 (h )(1 )(A); Uni te d St at es v. McGh ee , 53 2 F.3 d 73 3, 73 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )
(p ro ceed in gs to de te rm in e co m pe te nc y are ex cl ud ed un d e r t h e Sp eed y Tria l Act,

w h e t h er reas on ab le or un reas on ab le ). Thu s, Zav es ky ha s sh own no st at u t o r y
vi ol at io n o f th e Sp eed y

Trial Act.

B. Dou bl e Jeo

pa rd y

Zav es ky as se rt s t h at hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r rece ip t an d po ss es si on of ch il d

po rn og rap hy vi ol at e th e do ub le jeop ard y cl au se

. The In di ct m en t al le ge d in co un t on e

th at be twee n Sep te m

be r 13

, 20 10

, an d Apr il 9, 20 12

, Zav e sk y kn owi ng ly rece iv ed

on e or m or e vi su al de pi ct io ns o f a mi n o r en ga gi ng in se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t.

Co un t two al le ge d th at on or ab ou t Apr il 11

, 20 12

, Zav es ky kn owi ng ly po ss es se d at

le as t on e m at te r co nt ai ni ng a vi su al de pi ct io n of a m in or en ga gi ng in se xu al ly ex pl ic it

co nd uc t.

To pr ov e a do ub le jeop ard y vi ol at io n, a de fen da nt mu s t de m on st rat e th at he

was c o n v i c t e d o f “ two of fen se s th at are in la w an d fact th e sa m e of fen se .” Uni te d

St at es v. Muh le nb ru ch

, 63 4 F.3 d 98 7, 10 02 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 11 ). Po ss es si on of ch il d

po rn og rap hy is a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se to rece ip t of c h i l d p o rn og rap hy. Id

. Co nv ic ti on s f

or bo th po ss es si on an d rece ip t of th e sa m e im ag e vi ol at e th e do ub le
jeop ard y cla us e. Muh le nb ru ch , at 1 00 4.

Each co un t in th e In di ct m en t al le ge s co nd uc t oc cu rri ng on a di ffer en t da te

. At

tr i a l

, th e pr os ecu to r pr es en te d ev id en ce th at ch il d po rn og rap hy was lo cat ed in two

m ai n fo ld ers on th e co m

pu te r. Im ag es an d vi de os co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy were
do wnl oa de d be twee n Sep te m be r 13

, 20 10

, an d Apr il 10

, 20 12

, to a fo ld er na m ed

“ In co m in g”

. The jury was sh own se ve ral im ag es fro m th e “ In co m in g” fo ld er. I n
ad di ti on , ch il d po rn og rap hy, sp eci fic al ly a co py of a vi de o en ti tl ed “ wowo wowo w”,

was al so lo cat ed in a fo ld er en t i t l ed “ Doc um en ts ” th at ex is te d on Apr il 11

, 20 12

.

-9

-Thi s vi de o was pl ay ed fo r th e jury. The ch arg in g do cu m en t an d ev id en ce be fo re th e

jury dem on st rat e th at di ffer en t d at es an d d iff eren t vi su al de pi ct io ns of m in or s were

at is su e an d t hu s t he re i s n o d ou bl e jeop ard y vi ol at io n.

Eve n if th ere sh ou ld ha ve be en m or e pr eci si on in di st in gu is hi ng th e of fen se s,

at th e jury in st ru ct io n co nf eren ce th e pr os ecu ti on ha d no ob jecti on to th e di st ric t

co ur t’s pr op os ed sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s r e ga rd in g th e im ag e or im ag es in vo lv ed in

each of fen se

. Zav es ky’ s co un se l ack no wled ge d th at he li ke l y h a d a rig ht to th e

in te rro ga to rie s bu t th at he di d no t be li ev e th at is su e to be a “ de te rm in at e fact or ” an d

waiv ed an y rig ht he m ig ht ha ve ha d to pr es en t sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s to th e jury. T.

Tr.Vol

. II, pp

. 18 5- 87

. Zav es ky’s c o u n s e l’s st at em en ts co ns ti tu te a waiv er an d hi s
cl ai m is no t rev ie wab le on ap pe al

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. W is eca rv er , 59 8 F.3 d 98 2, 98 8
(8 t h C i r

. 20 10 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at a de fen da nt waiv es an arg um en t by in te nt io na ll y
rel in qu is hi ng or ab an do ni ng a kn own rig ht an d th at waiv ed cl ai m s are no t rev ie wab le

on ap pe al ).

C. Su pp re ss io n Mo ti on

Zav es ky arg ue s th at 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
be cau se he was il le ga ll y se iz ed an d su bjec te d to a “ de fact o arre st ” whe n he pr ov id ed

in cri m in at in g st at em en ts to la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers , an d th at th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed

fro m hi s s em i-t ru ck was “ fru it of t he po is on ou s t ree.”

A di st ric t co ur t’ s le ga l de te rm in at io n ab ou t whe th er a de fen da nt was in cu st od y
is rev ie wed de no vo an d th e co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s are rev ie wed fo r cl ear e r ro r.

Uni te d St at es v. Vin to n , 63 1 F.3 d 47 6, 48 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Si x no ne xc lu si ve fact or s

are c on si de red when de te rm in in g wh et he r a s us pe ct is in cu st od y :

(1 ) whe th er th e su sp ect was in fo rm ed at th e ti m e of qu es ti on in g th at th e
qu es ti on in g was vo lu nt ary, th at th e su sp ect was free to le av e or req ue st th e of fic ers to do so , or th at th e su sp ect was no t co ns id ered un de r arre st ;

-1 0-(2 ) whe th er th e su sp ect po s s e ss ed un res tra in ed free do m of m ov em en t

du rin g qu es ti on in g; (3 ) whe th er th e su sp ect in it ia te d co nt act wit h

au th or it ie s or vo lu nt ari ly acq ui es ced to of fic ia l req ue st s to res po nd to

qu es ti on s; (4 ) whe th er str on g a rm ta ct ic s or dece pt iv e st rat ag em s were

em pl oyed du rin g qu es ti on in g; (5 ) whe th er th e at m os p h ere of th e
qu es ti on in g was po li c e do m in at ed ; or , (6 ) whe th er th e su sp ect was pl aced un de r arre st at t he ter m in at io n o f th e q ue st io ni ng

.

Uni te d S ta te s v. Gr if

fi n , 92 2 F .2d 13 43 , 13 49 (8t h C ir. 1 99 0)

.

Dur in g h is en co un te r wit h la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers , Zav es ky was in fo rm ed

m ul ti pl e ti m es , at le as t fiv e ti m es acco rd in g t o th e in te rv ie win g ag en t’s te st im on y , th at he was no t un de r arre st an d t ha t he di d no t ha ve to ta lk to th em

. The ve hi cl e’s

do or s wer e un lo ck ed , a nd at on e po in t, Zav es ky l eft th e ag en ts ’ ve hi cl e an d st art ed

walk in g away. W he n Zav es ky ret ur ne d, he vo lu nt ari ly rei ni ti a t e d th e co nv ers at io n
wit h th e ag en ts

. Zav es ky was se le ct iv e in whi ch qu es ti on s or t o p i c s he wou ld ta lk

ab ou t, de cl in in g to an swe r cert ai n qu es ti on s. Zav es ky was no t arre st ed at th e sc en e,
bu t le ft in a cab

. W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at Zav es ky was no t in cu st od y an d

th us th ere was no Mir an da vi ol at io n.

Zav es ky al so arg ue s 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 ev id en ce se iz ed fro m hi s s em i-t ru ck as “ fru it of t he po is on ou s t ree.” In l ig ht of

th e ba ck gr ou nd in ve st ig at io n an d Zav es ky’ s st at em en ts

, la w en fo rc em en t of

fi cers ha d

pr ob ab le cau se to de ta in Zav es ky’ s se m i-t ru ck aft er ob se rv in g t h e la pt op in th e

pa ss en ge r’s se at

. Se e Uni t e d St at es v. Goo da le

, 73 8 F.3 d 91 7, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )
(n ot in g whe re of

fic ers ha ve pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e la pt op co nt ai ns co nt rab an d an d

th ere is a le gi ti m at e in te res t in pr ev en ti ng de st ru ct io n of th e po te nt ia l co nt rab an d, th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t pe rm it s se iz ur e of th e pr op ert y , pe nd in g is su an ce of a warra nt to

ex am in e it s co nt en ts ). The se m i-t ru ck was de ta in ed fo r ap pr ox im at el y on e ho ur whi le

th e of fic ers ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt

. The warra nt le ss se iz ur e of th e se m i-t ru ck an d

-1 1-la pt op di d n ot vi ol at e Zav es ky’ s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t er r

in de nyin g Zav es ky’ s m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

III. Co nc lu si on

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-1 2-