Opinion ID: 150486
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidenceAssisting in unauthorized interception

Text: The Sweeneys challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions for violating 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1). Section 553 prohibits assist[ing] in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law. The statute goes on to define assist[ing] in intercepting or receiving to include the manufacture or distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable system. Id. § 553(a)(2). We review[] the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Reversal of a conviction is proper only if no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Pliego, 578 F.3d 938, 941 (8th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Kent, 531 F.3d 642, 651-52 (8th Cir.2008)), cert. denied, 558 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1109, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010). The Sweeneys do not dispute that the products Micro-Star manufactured and sold could be used to intercept cable signals illegally. They point out, however, that Congress has not made the manufacture or distribution of such products illegal per se. Rather, the statute only criminalizes the manufacture or distribution of equipment that the manufacturer or distributor intends to be used for the unauthorized interception of cable service. The Sweeneys claim that the Government presented insufficient evidence of such an intent on their part, pointing to the alternative, legal uses of descramblers and authorization control devices. Because [d]irect evidence of a defendant's mental state frequently is unavailable,. . . the jury is entitled to scrutinize and make reasonable inferences from [the] defendant's conduct and from all facts surrounding the incident in question. United States v. Peters, 462 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir.2006) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Here, the Government presented sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find that the Sweeneys intended the descramblers and authorization control devices Micro-Star manufactured and sold to be used to steal cable programming. Muller, the Government's cable industry expert, testified that he was aware of no purpose for the nonaddressable feature of the descramblers that Micro-Star produced and sold other than facilitating the theft of cable programming. See also Cont'l Cablevision, Inc. v. Poll, 124 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir.1997) (finding that nonaddressable nature of cable boxes was evidence of intent); Intermedia Partners Se. Gen. P'ship v. QB Distribs., LLC, 999 F.Supp. 1274, 1280 (D.Minn.1998) (The Court finds persuasive the uncontroverted testimony . . . that the non-addressable decoding devices manufactured and sold by defendants have no legitimate purpose.). Similarly, Quade, one of the owners of Core Innovation Systems, testified that he knew the descramblers he purchased from Micro-Star and resold would eventually be used to intercept cable programming illegally. Micro-Star employee Mertes testified about using a descrambler in her home that Mr. Sweeney personally sold to her to receive premium programming without paying for it, just as Muller and Quade described. Finally, news articles found in the Sweeneys' home detailed other criminal and civil prosecutions against people similarly engaged in manufacturing and distributing descramblers. See United States v. Mills, 987 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir.1993) (noting that newspaper articles of schemes similar to the defendant's were relevant to the defendant's intent); United States v. Ellis, 326 F.3d 550, 555 (4th Cir.2003) (considering articles as evidence of knowledge and intent). Together, the Government's evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sweeneys intended that the descramblers and authorization control devices Micro-Star manufactured and sold be used for the unauthorized interception of cable signals and that the Sweeneys therefore violated 47 U.S.C. § 553. See also Comcast of Ill. X v. Multi-Vision Elecs., Inc. 491 F.3d 938, 945 (8th Cir. 2007) (rejecting, in a civil case, an argument that the potential legitimate uses of a descrambler showed a lack of intent).