Opinion ID: 3006528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: On appeal, Hester does not dispute that the laptop and CDs found in his home contained child pornography depicting prepubescent minors or minors less than 12 years old, that the government downloaded child pornography from his laptop using peer-to-peer software, or that the child pornography on the laptop and the CDs was received, distributed, and possessed using facilities in interstate commerce. Rather Hester argues only that the government failed to prove that it was he, rather than someone else, who knowingly received, possessed, and distributed the child pornography. 3 The government, however, presented ample evidence that Hester was the person who knowingly received, possessed, and distributed the child pornography, as charged in the indictment. The laptop and the CDs containing child pornography were all found in Hester’s bedroom. Hester then admitted to agents that the laptop belonged to him. Hester also admitted: (1) searching for child 3 This Court reviews de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v. Boffil-Rivera, 607 F.3d 736, 740 (11th Cir. 2010). 4 Case: 14-15202 Date Filed: 10/01/2015 Page: 5 of 9 pornography using the search term “pthc,” which he knew meant “preteen hardcore”; (2) downloading child pornography onto his laptop using Shareaza, peer-to-peer file-sharing software, and then moving the files to a separate folder; and (3) possibly storing some of the child pornography on CDs. Corroborating Hester’s admissions, Agent Whitten testified, based on his forensic examination of Hester’s laptop and the CDs, that: (1) Shareaza was installed on the laptop and was used to find child pornography using the search term “pthc”; (2) child pornography files were downloaded using Shareaza and moved from the downloads folder to other folders; and (3) child pornography videos on the CDs were played on the laptop using a media player program. Further, Agent Stewart testified that as part of her investigation she successfully downloaded child pornography videos from the shared folder on Hester’s laptop using Shareaza, and Agent Whitten testified that, given the process necessary to install Shareaza, Hester would have known he was sharing files from particular folders. Finally, Gus Dimitrelos, the government’s expert witness in computer forensics, testified that he had no doubt that Hester was the person who used the laptop to download and share child pornography. Dimitrelos based his expert opinion on the “digital evidence,” the physical evidence of the hard drives and the computers found in Hester’s home, and Hester’s statements. With respect to the 5 Case: 14-15202 Date Filed: 10/01/2015 Page: 6 of 9 digital evidence, Dimitrelos pointed to finding “digital sandwiches” on Hester’s hard drive showing that Hester engaged in other activities (such as storing pictures of himself) just before and after accessing images of child pornography. Dimitrelos further explained that he found no evidence that a virus, a remote operator, or a person other than Hester was responsible for the child pornography found on Hester’s laptop. Contrary to Hester’s contention, Dimitrelos’s testimony was not incredible as a matter of law. That is, Dimitrelos did not testify to facts that he could not possibly have observed or that could not have occurred under the laws of nature. 4 See United States v. Rivera, 775 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir. 1985). Rather, Dimitrelos testified as an expert witness about his opinions based on all the evidence in the case, including the digital evidence revealed from the forensic evaluation and Hester’s statements. In sum, the government’s trial evidence was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Hester was the person who received, possessed, and distributed the child pornography found on his laptop. See United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that a jury’s verdict “cannot be overturned if any 4 In the portion of his counseled brief devoted to the sufficiency of the evidence, Hester makes passing references to the district court’s failure to exclude Dimitrelos’s expert testimony or to instruct the jury to disregard Dimitrelos’s expert testimony, but he offers no meaningful argument as to these claims. Accordingly, these claims are abandoned. See United States v. Woods, 684 F.3d 1045, 1064 n.23 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a defendant abandons an issue when he merely makes a passing reference in his brief and fails to develop any argument with respect to an alleged error). 6 Case: 14-15202 Date Filed: 10/01/2015 Page: 7 of 9 reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”).