Opinion ID: 6103672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Koch

Text: In United States v. Koch, we also vacated a prohibition on sexual materials because the district court did not adequately justify the condition with compelling circumstances. 978 F.3d at 725, 730. The district court “merely noted the following: (1) the extent of Koch’s criminal history (i.e., sexual contact with thirteen-year-old and fifteen-year-old girls and possession of child pornography); (2) a personal doubt offenders like Koch were amenable to rehabilitation; and (3) a desire to address Koch’s ‘cognitive thinking errors.’” Id. at 725. The court did not “analyze or explain how restricting [the defendant’s] access to sexually oriented (but nonpornographic) materials, specifically including such materials only involving adults, would aid in [his] rehabilitation or protect the public.” Id. For example, the court did not “find that accessing sexual material involving adults impaired [the defendant’s] rehabilitation because it rendered him unable to undertake tasks associated with daily life,” or “acted as some kind of sexualizing gateway leading to the consumption of child pornography.” Id. 17 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 18 b. Application i. The district court’s inadequate findings The district court’s explanation for its decision was deficient for the same reasons discussed in our recent decision in Koch. Here, as in Koch, the district court merely “reviewed [Mr. Englehart’s] personal and criminal history,” “repeatedly noted [Mr. Englehart’s] prior conviction” of sexual abuse as well as allegations for which he was not convicted, and deemed this history “concerning.” Id. at 723. Here, as in Koch, the district court failed to mention the three statutory requirements set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), let alone “analyze and generally explain how, with regard to the specific defendant being sentenced, the special condition furthers” those criteria. Id. at 725. And here, as in Koch, the court failed to connect any of its “findings” to the Sexual Material Prohibition, let alone justify the condition with a showing of “compelling circumstances.” Id. at 726. Instead, the district court generally summarized Mr. Englehart’s past and vaguely referenced the testimony of the Government’s witnesses. The court “made no specific findings with regard to the special conditions of supervised release.” United States v. Dunn, 777 F.3d 1171, 1178 (10th Cir. 2015). There may be good reasons to impose the Sexual Material Prohibition given Mr. Englehart’s history and background. But the district court failed to connect Mr. Englehart’s background and the Sexual Materials Prohibition to the statutory factors. “If the district court believed that there was some relationship between the defendant’s possession and use of adult pornography and the likelihood that he would 18 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 19 engage in sexual misconduct involving young girls, the court should have explained the basis for that conclusion.” United States v. Peraza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65, 76 (1st Cir. 2009); see also Martinez-Torres, 795 F.3d at 1240. In other words, the district court “needed to explain why the restriction on legal sexually explicit material was supported by the statutory factors in this case.” Martinez-Torres, 795 F.3d at 1238 (emphasis added). It failed to do so. See Koch, 978 F.3d at 726 (“Nor did the district court consider any of the other potentially numerous valid reasons for restricting [the defendant’s] access to constitutionally protected materials.”). “Absent such analyses on the part of the district court, it is simply impossible for [Mr. Englehart] to contest, or for this court to resolve as a substantive matter, whether a prohibition like the Sexual Material Prohibition satisfies the statutory imperatives set out in [§ 3583(d)], let alone the requirement that any such special condition, given that it implicates a fundamental right, serves a compelling governmental interest.” Id. Further, “even if the condition served ‘some unexplained rehabilitative, deterrent or penological purpose,’ the purpose needed ‘to be balanced against the serious First Amendment concerns endemic in such a restriction.’” Martinez-Torres, 795 F.3d at 1240 (quoting United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139, 151 (3d Cir. 2007)). Here, the district court failed to (1) identify the rehabilitative, deterrent, or penological purpose of the condition; and (2) balance any such purpose against First Amendment concerns. 19 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 20 ii. Dr. Denison The district court’s vague reference to Dr. Denison’s testimony does not suffice to establish the required nexus. The court said simply that “we know from Dr. Denison’s testimony, looking from the back forward, the danger of [pornography] for persons such as Mr. Englehart who do have that history in their background.” ROA, Vol. 3 at 148. It did not elaborate on the “danger[s]” that Dr. Denison’s testimony established. In Koch, we suggested that one justification for a Sexual Material Prohibition might be a finding that sexual material involving adults “acted as some kind of sexualizing gateway leading to the consumption of child pornography.” 978 F.3d at 725. But the district court’s analysis of that issue here was inadequate to allow “this court to resolve as a substantive matter, whether a prohibition like the Sexual Material Prohibition . . . serves a compelling governmental interest.” Id. at 726. Other than its conclusory reference to Dr. Denison’s testimony, the court did not analyze or explain how that testimony showed the Sexual Material Prohibition is “reasonably related” to Mr. Englehart’s particular “history and characteristics, the need to protect the public from future crimes, and his need for correctional treatment.” United States v. Bear, 769 F.3d 1221, 1228 (10th Cir. 2014). Further, Dr. Denison’s analysis and conclusions provide limited value because he did not examine Mr. Englehart. See United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686, 693 (10th Cir. 2011) (relying in part on results of psychological evaluations to support conditions); United States v. Barela, 797 F.3d 1186, 1193 (10th Cir. 2015) (same). 20 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 21 His testimony regarding “habituation” thus amounts to little more than an abstract possibility. Dr. Denison’s general observation that a high percentage of those who commit sexual offenses also consume pornography is not the kind of “individualized assessment” that our cases require. Martinez-Torres, 795 F.3d at 1237. As we previously noted in Martinez-Torres, “there is certainly expert literature suggesting, at the least, that a more nuanced approach is preferable to painting with a broad brush.” Id. at 1240 (collecting authorities). Indeed, Dr. Denison “hesitate[d] to make statements about this particular defendant because[, he said,] I don’t know him—I’m certainly not making any judgments about his risk level because I haven’t conducted a psychosexual evaluation of Mr. Englehart.” ROA, Vol. III at 81. Dr. Denison’s testimony may have established that the use of adult pornography could be a “risk factor” for Mr. Englehart. But before determining that the risk was sufficient to justify the Sexual Material Prohibition, the district court needed to consider the presence of other risk factors, as well as any mitigating factors, and balance the risks “against the serious First Amendment concerns endemic in such a restriction.” Martinez-Torres, 795 F.3d at 1240 (quotations omitted). The district court’s conclusory reference to the “danger” of pornography for individuals with Mr. Englehart’s “history” was insufficient. ROA, Vol. III at 148.