Opinion ID: 2803326
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Johnston argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for conspiracy to produce child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251. Although Johnston advances an interpretation of the evidence that absolves him of guilt, we affirm because a reasonable jury could have found each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). According to chat records, Switlass—whom agents believed to be an adult prostitute located overseas—and Johnston discussed sex with young girls, money, photos, and UNITED STATES V. JOHNSTON 11 a possible party with Switlass and two girls. On May 25, 2006, the conversation turned to production of pictures. Johnston told Switlass that he wanted her to produce child pornography. At Switlass’s request, Johnston promptly sent her $350 to purchase a “digicam” to take photographs of minor females. After that discussion, Johnston told Switlass “we are partners” and asked her to “send me one 12 year picture.” Although Switlass asked for $400, Johnston in a later chat explained that $350 should be enough for a camera. Based on the chat transcripts, the enterprise on the table on May 25 was an effort, which Johnston characterized as a partnership, to photograph underage girls. The conspiracy was born. A reasonable jury could have viewed that evidence as more than sufficient to establish that Johnston and Switlass formed a conspiracy to produce child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251. Johnston attempts to escape this conclusion by pointing out that some of the photographs he received from Switlass were produced months before their chats. In Johnston’s view, this timing demonstrates that Switlass never intended to produce any new child pornography, but instead only to sell Johnston already-existing images. According to Johnston, there was only a “one-way” agreement; because Switlass and he never had a shared criminal intent, there was never a “meeting of the minds” required to support a conspiracy conviction.1 1 The government’s position that Switlass’s intent is irrelevant so long as Johnston honestly believed he was entering a conspiracy contradicts well-established law. The essence of a conspiracy is a “meeting of the minds.” If “two defendants act in concert to achieve a different goal, the 12 UNITED STATES V. JOHNSTON Although Johnston’s version of events is not entirely implausible, the jury was entitled to reject it. Notably, Johnston’s gloss on the evidence overlooks the almost contemporaneous events of his solicitation to Swittlass, her request for money to undertake the filming, and Johnston’s confirmation that they were “partners.” Even if the evidence regarding the production date of the photographs had been iron-clad (which it was not), a “rational factfinder” could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the chat records nonetheless demonstrated the existence of an agreement between Johnston and Switlass to produce child pornography. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 324. We decline to second-guess a reasonable jury’s interpretation of the evidence.