Opinion ID: 77425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Record

Text: 5 O'Keefe's primary trial defense was that he was actually an anti-child pornography crusader who developed internet web sites to entrap child predators in order to turn their identities over to law enforcement authorities. 4 According to O'Keefe, his crusading efforts were thwarted when the web sites were hacked into and altered by computer viruses to include pornographic images of children. 6 At trial, the government first broached the subject of O'Keefe's silence when it asked Homeland Security Agent Cory Brant (Brant), the case agent for O'Keefe's case, about his knowledge of O'Keefe working as an undercover vigilante to expose child pornography on the internet. (R. Vol. 9 at 95.) Without objection from O'Keefe's counsel, Brant responded that he first learned of O'Keefe's defense during O'Keefe's opening statement. (R. Vol. 9 at 95-96.) Brant also testified that he seized a computer and several compact discs, zip disks, and floppy disks from O'Keefe's house, and a computer from the high school where O'Keefe worked. ( Id. at 100, 108; Vol. 12 at 166.) 7 James Fottrell (Fottrell), a manager of the High Technology Investigative Unit within the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Department of Justice, testified for the government as an expert witness in computer forensics. (R. Vol. 10 at 51-52, 69.) Fottrell testified that, during his investigation of O'Keefe's computer, he performed a virus analysis on O'Keefe's hard drive. (R. Vol. 11 at 63.) Fottrell stated that he found two viruses on O'Keefe's computer that were only capable of replacing the default homepage of the web browser with a homepage that O'Keefe did not select. ( Id. at 65-66.) Fottrell further testified that the two viruses he found on O'Keefe's computer were not capable of downloading and uploading child pornography and sending out advertisements. ( Id. at 67.) 8 During the trial, O'Keefe testified in his own defense. On direct examination, O'Keefe testified that he began gathering evidence against child predators on the internet because of an incident involving a family member in 1990. (R. Vol. 12 at 127.) O'Keefe stated that he had participated in anti-child pornography web sites and reported information to the police anonymously, but was dissatisfied with the response. ( Id. at 134, 137.) As a result, O'Keefe decided to begin a personal crusade against child predators and began associating with others who were interested in trying to rid the internet of child pornography. He later developed web sites in an attempt to attract these predators so that he and his associates could eliminate child pornography on the internet. ( Id. at 131, 137, 139.) O'Keefe claimed that the other individuals with whom he worked in developing the web sites also had access to the sites. ( Id. at 143-44.) O'Keefe acknowledged that he created the hctweens web site and survey with the intent of eliciting hard core images from pornographers through e-mail. ( Id. at 154-56.) O'Keefe stated that he intended to transmit the information received from the hctweens web site to the Anti-Child Porn Organization. ( Id. at 156.) O'Keefe further stated that he had previously reported anonymously to the Anti-Child Porn Organization who in turn reports to law enforcement. ( Id. at 192.) 9 On cross-examination, O'Keefe testified that he wrote a survey containing sexually explicit questions involving children and posted the survey on one of his web sites. ( Id. at 167-69.) O'Keefe also acknowledged that a web site containing child pornography stories was on his computer, as well as pornographic pictures that involved children, but he maintained that he did not recall viewing the stories or pictures. ( Id. at 169-81.) O'Keefe further testified that he saved pornographic images on the floppy disks, but did not know that the images involved pictures of children. ( Id. at 162-63.) 10 The government then raised the subject of O'Keefe's silence with O'Keefe during his cross-examination: 11 Q: . . . [T]he computer was seized on June 4th by [Brant] and others from your house? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: All right. And at no point did you ever tell [Brant] that you were a vigilante or private citizen? 14 ( Id. at 185-86.) Before O'Keefe could answer the question, his counsel objected and the following colloquy ensued: 15 Court: What is the objection? 16 Defense: [O'Keefe] does — [O'Keefe]'s going to be read his rights. He has no obligation to tell [Brant] or any other agent anything. And I object to his commentary on whether anything was or was not said. 17 Court: What do you mean? 18 Government: It is noncustodial, Your Honor. It has nothing. [sic] 19 Court: What is the objection? 20 Defense: The objection is that [O'Keefe] has no obligation to make a statement and the commentary is that he didn't make a statement. 21 Court: Well. Fine. That is correct. He doesn't have to make a statement, so what is the question? 22 . . . 23 Defense: It is objectionable for [the government] to ask [O'Keefe] what statements he made or didn't tell this person that. That is objectionable and I object to it. 24 ( Id. at 185-86.) The court overruled the objection and stated that O'Keefe does not have to say anything, but he cannot not be asked whether he did or didn't. ( Id. ) 25 The government continued its cross-examination, and O'Keefe admitted that he never told Brant on the day of the search or any time thereafter that he was a private citizen trying to expose child pornography. ( Id. ) O'Keefe also admitted that he never told anyone at the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, nor the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about his vigilantism. ( Id. at 186-88.) The court then gave the jury a limiting instruction, advising them that 26 [A] defendant or a suspect has no obligation to volunteer questions — I mean answers to questions, and in some situations may have a right not to make a statement. The Court is allowing this cross examination because of the — because of the facts asserted and testified to by the defendant on direct. So since that's a matter he talked about, he can be questioned about what he did or may not have done in that regard. But that's not to be confused with an obligation as if that means there's a — some legal accountability because he did or did not. 27 ( Id. at 188.) The cross-examination then continued and O'Keefe admitted that he did not report his activities to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation nor any other law enforcement agent. ( Id. at 188-89.) 28 On redirect examination, O'Keefe further testified that he never had the opportunity to pass any information to law enforcement with regard to child predators because one of his web sites went crazy and he did not want anything further to do with it. (R. Vol. 13 at 29.) The court then gave another limiting instruction to the jury concerning O'Keefe's testimony: 29 Ladies and gentlemen . . . the Court in an abundance of caution wants to give you an instruction . . . . [I]t is a defense to the charge of possession of child pornography if, to the best of the defendant's knowledge, at the time of the possession, he had possessed less than three matters containing any prohibited visual depiction and that promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person other than a law enforcement agency, to access any such visual image or a copy thereof, one, he either took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction or reported the matter to . . . a law enforcement agency and afforded the agency access to each such visual depiction. So that's an affirmative defense that's being discussed. There's certain things — if there's a certain limited number of alleged visual depictions and steps are taken to destroy them or to report it to a law enforcement agency, that's the . . . defense that the Court will describe to you and . . . you determine on the facts whether or not there are facts that satisfy you that that [sic] was the case and would be a defense in the case. So that's the context when the Court was discussing about whether something was reported to a third-party or some alleged intermediary as opposed to law enforcement. 30 ( Id. at 34-35.) 31 O'Keefe called Jeff Fischbach (Fischbach) as an expert witness in the area of computer and digital media forensics. ( Id. at 38, 44.) Fischbach testified that the defense counsel had retained him to conduct a forensic examination of the computer media involved in O'Keefe's case. ( Id. at 54.) In describing his typical process of examination in a case like O'Keefe's, Fischbach stated that 32 defense counsel will give us a set of stated goals in terms of trying to demonstrate something or eliminate something as a possibility, and then we will work from — from those goals. Very typically we will be in essence spoon fed various items that need to be examined and then examine those items again with the understanding that law enforcement themselves have already done a more broad examination. 33 ( Id. at 53-54.) Fischbach testified, however, that he is not guided in any way by defense counsel when conducting his examinations. ( Id. at 54.) Fischbach further testified that he searched for the presence of a Trojan virus on O'Keefe's computer because the events on the computer did not appear to be consistent with a single user. ( Id. at 112.) Fischbach stated that he found suggestions of a Trojan virus on O'Keefe's computer, which would have allowed another user to control the computer by remote and give the appearance that the computer's owner performed actions on the computer that the owner actually did not perform. ( Id. at 112, 116-17.) On cross-examination, Fischbach testified that he did not find a specific Trojan virus on O'Keefe's computer, but rather he found only indications of a certain type of virus and, if there was a virus, it had already been removed. ( Id. at 150.) 34 Both parties then rested their cases and the court issued its jury instructions. Among other instructions, the court instructed the jury that 35 [Y]ou must consider only the evidence that I have admitted in the case. The term evidence includes the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in the record. Remember that anything that the lawyers say is not evidence in the case. It is your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence that controls. What the lawyers say is not binding upon you. 36 (R. Vol. 14 at 10.) The trial proceeded with the government's closing argument, wherein the government argued that O'Keefe was present when the search warrant was executed at his residence and 37 yet he never mention[ed] to [Brant] that he is in fact a vigilante assisting [Brant] in law enforcement in tracking down and stopping child pornography. Never mentions it. In fact, the defense waits until the first day of trial to tell anyone in law enforcement of their defense. Are those the actions of someone that is truthful? Are those the actions of someone that is really trying to help law enforcement or is it a cheap stunt pulled at the last minute by a defense team desperate to get acquittal at any cost? 38 ( Id. at 31-32.) The government further argued that [t]he defense explanations are far[-]fetched, hypothetical theories . . . . As their expert admitted, not on cross[-]examination, but on direct when [O'Keefe's counsel] was asking him, he was spoon-fed, and then he sat here on the stand and regurgitated his spoon-fed theories. ( Id. at 43.) 39 During the closing arguments, O'Keefe's counsel informed the jury that O'Keefe's defense has nothing to do with being a vigilante. . . . Our position is everything [O'Keefe] did in his quest to end pedophilia and child pornography on the Internet was legal. (R. Vol. 16 at 2-3.) The government then presented its rebuttal argument, stating 40 There's no evidence [O'Keefe] ever did anything to help law enforcement. And, yet, when Special Agent Brant showed up in his house . . . he had nothing to say. Nothing to say. Didn't say thank God you are here, I am one of you, I am a good guy, I have been looking at these sites, I have been tracking them down. No. Never said it. The first time we ever heard about that . . . was in court after the trial had started where he put on his sham make-believe vigilante defense on helping law enforcement . . . . Again, the defenses sprout up like mushrooms and none of them make any sense . . . . When the facts are against them. The law is against them. When both the facts and the law are against you, as a defense attorney, you make something up. . . . You make up the Trojan horse virus. 41 (R. Vol. 14 at 47, 48.) At that point, O'Keefe's counsel raised an objection, arguing that it was improper for the government to suggest that he fabricated a defense. ( Id. at 49.) Without ruling on the objection, the court then provided the jury with a curative instruction, stating 42 [Y]ou need to make your decision based on the evidence, as I told you before, and counsel is not responsible for bringing this case with the defense. There's no burden on the defense. The burden is upon the government to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So, as I said earlier, counsel's comments are simply just not evidence. So just be reminded of that. 43 ( Id. ) The government proceeded with its argument, asserting that the defense certainly spoon-fed their expert. ( Id. at 49.) The closing arguments then concluded. 44 After deliberations, the jury found O'Keefe guilty on all counts of the indictment. The district court sentenced O'Keefe to 210 months imprisonment and O'Keefe immediately perfected this appeal.