Opinion ID: 177273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: c.4-5.

Text: MacFarlane testified that he did not consider Lochmiller to be a CI because, once Lochmiller provided access to the NAMGLA site, the FBI did not anticipate using him to obtain future information about illegal activities. Nonetheless, defense counsel obtained an admission from MacFarlane on crossexamination that the CI Guidelines are designed, in part, to prevent the implication of innocent individuals in criminal activity. Defense counsel later argued in closing that Lochmiller qualified as a CI. Thus, counsel insinuated that MacFarlane had deviated from the CI Guidelines in relying on information supplied by Lochmiller and that MacFarlane’s conduct created the risk that Lochmiller had falsely implicated Christie and other 8 users of the NAMGLA website. The alleged unreliability of the investigation was central to Christie’s defense at trial. On redirect examination, the government sought to rebut the suggestion of unreliability by asking MacFarlane to “relay ... the circumstances and facts gathered at the takedown of this investigation that would address the concerns ... raised in terms of the implication of innocent people[.]” (App. at 380.) Christie objected that MacFarlane lacked sufficient personal knowledge to answer the question, but the Court overruled the objection after the government pointed out that MacFarlane was the lead agent on the case. MacFarlane then responded that, “[o]n the day of the takedown nationwide, the F.B.I. executed approximately 30 search warrants on houses all across the country. Of those 30, it’s my understanding that the F.B.I. obtained partial or full confessions from 24 separate individuals on child pornography-related offenses.”2 (Id. at 381.) Also during Agent MacFarlane’s testimony, the Court questioned why users of the NAMGLA website did not pay a fee to access the website’s content, which prompted the following exchange: THE COURT: Let me ask you this. A person wants to be a user, wants to get this 2 Christie did not move to strike MacFarlane’s response from the record. 9 information. Does he pay for it? THE WITNESS: Not on this site, no. THE COURT: Then it was just sexual gratification in seeing these pictures? THE WITNESS: I would surmise that for the people who would post this, yes. THE COURT: If you know, is there any monetary return to these people who engage in this sort of activity, or are they just getting their kicks, as the word is used colloquially? (Id. at 235.) At that point, the defense raised an objection to the line of questioning, which the Court overruled. MacFarlane then continued: THE WITNESS: On this website, I did not see anything to indicate that it had a financial motive or there was any way you 10 could pay for this. It was more of an exchange, meaning – you give something to get something. That was not monetary, it was pictures. THE COURT: So what you’re saying, it’s your opinion it’s the gratification of seeing the pictures. 11 THE WITNESS: That would be my understanding of what these people would be motivated by, yes. (Id. at 235-36.) Later in the trial, Bennett testified regarding the two posts that Christie admitted uploading under the screen name “franklee.” Specifically, Bennett testified that Christie acknowledged having submitted the posts and that Christie described them as “fantasies.” (Id. at 608.) Although Bennett told the jury that one post concerned a nine year old in a supermarket and the other concerned becoming aroused while changing a baby’s diaper, the government elicited no further information regarding the content of those posts. Bennett also testified that agents had discovered toys in Christie’s apartment, and that Christie had explained that he used them to quiet rowdy children on his school bus. Christie objected to the testimony regarding the subjects of the posts as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and he objected to testimony concerning the toys as unduly prejudicial. The Court overruled those objections. It reasoned that the posts showed that Christie visited the NAMGLA site with the intent of exchanging child pornography. The Court permitted testimony about the toys after the government argued that it linked Christie to his occupation as a bus driver and therefore showed that he responded truthfully during the interrogation by Bennett. 12 Trial lasted for eight days, after which the jury convicted Christie on all eight counts of the indictment. Christie filed a post-trial motion in which he argued that the jury’s verdict should be vacated and the charges against him dismissed because of the government’s allegedly outrageous conduct, namely, its lack of control over Lochmiller and its permitting Lochmiller to continue running the NAMGLA website, all in violation of the CI Guidelines. The Court denied that motion, concluding that, even if the CI Guidelines applied to Lochmiller, “the FBI’s failure to follow [them,] without more, does not constitute outrageous conduct worthy of setting aside a conviction.” (App. at 79.) C. Sentencing Christie was sentenced on June 23, 2009. Under § 2G2.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines, the District Court calculated that, after several applicable enhancements, Christie’s total offense level was 45 and his criminal history category was I, producing a Guideline range sentence of life imprisonment. The District Court, recognizing that the recommended sentence was life imprisonment, stated that it would impose “a life sentence consisting of the statutory minimum sentence applied consecutively on Counts 1 through 6.” (App. at 2007.) The Court then sentenced Christie to 1,080 months imprisonment, which represented the mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years on each of Counts 1 through 6, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e), to be served consecutively; the mandatory minimum of five years on Count 7, id. § 2252A(b)(1) to be served concurrently; and a fiveyear sentence on Count 8, id. § 2252A(b)(2), to be served concurrently. In support of that sentence, the Court stated that 13 Christie was more than “a mere downloader of child pornography,” (App. at 1996), that, instead, he had a collection of child pornography containing thousands of images and was a moderator of the NAMGLA website and a remorseless promoter of materials depicting minors engaged in sexual conduct.