Opinion ID: 2369035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pretrial Motions and Trial

Text: Prior to trial, Christie made several pretrial motions, including a motion for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the government's work with Lochmiller constituted outrageous conduct amounting to a violation of Christie's due process rights. [1] The District Court denied the motion, concluding that, at the pretrial stage, the government's conduct did not raise sufficient concern to warrant a hearing. Additionally, in a pro se motion to suppress, Christie argued that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining his IP address without first acquiring a search warrant. The District Court rejected that argument, holding that Christie lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in his IP address. Trial commenced on the child pornography charges on November 12, 2008. During the government's case-in-chief, Agent MacFarlane testified about the FBI's contact with Lochmiller and the efforts to obtain from him the IP addresses of people using NAMGLA's website. MacFarlane acknowledged that Buehler served as an intermediary between the FBI and Lochmiller and, on cross-examination, MacFarlane admitted that he had never met Lochmiller personally. Defense counsel further questioned MacFarlane about whether Lochmiller qualified as a confidential informant (CI) under the Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants (the CI Guidelines). Those guidelines define a confidential informant as any individual who provides useful and credible information... regarding felonious criminal activities, and from whom [the FBI] expects or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information regarding such activities in the future. ATT'Y GEN. GUIDELINES REGARDING THE USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS [hereinafter CI GUIDELINES] § I.B.6, available at http://www.fas.org/ irp/agency/doj/fbi/dojguidelines.pdf. The guidelines establish rules applicable to all Department of Justice law enforcement agencies, see id. § I.A.3, and generally prohibit the use of fugitives and probationers as CIs. Id. § II.D.5-6. They also require that a law enforcement agent personally meet with and supervise an individual who will act as a CI. Id. § III.C.4-5. MacFarlane testified that he did not consider Lochmiller to be a CI because, once Lochmiller provided access to the NAMGLA site, the FBI did not anticipate using him to obtain future information about illegal activities. Nonetheless, defense counsel obtained an admission from MacFarlane on cross-examination that the CI Guidelines are designed, in part, to prevent the implication of innocent individuals in criminal activity. Defense counsel later argued in closing that Lochmiller qualified as a CI. Thus, counsel insinuated that MacFarlane had deviated from the CI Guidelines in relying on information supplied by Lochmiller and that MacFarlane's conduct created the risk that Lochmiller had falsely implicated Christie and other users of the NAMGLA website. The alleged unreliability of the investigation was central to Christie's defense at trial. On redirect examination, the government sought to rebut the suggestion of unreliability by asking MacFarlane to relay... the circumstances and facts gathered at the takedown of this investigation that would address the concerns ... raised in terms of the implication of innocent people[.] (App. at 380.) Christie objected that MacFarlane lacked sufficient personal knowledge to answer the question, but the Court overruled the objection after the government pointed out that MacFarlane was the lead agent on the case. MacFarlane then responded that, [o]n the day of the takedown nationwide, the F.B.I. executed approximately 30 search warrants on houses all across the country. Of those 30, it's my understanding that the F.B.I. obtained partial or full confessions from 24 separate individuals on child pornography-related offenses. [2] ( Id. at 381.) Also during Agent MacFarlane's testimony, the Court questioned why users of the NAMGLA website did not pay a fee to access the website's content, which prompted the following exchange: THE COURT: Let me ask you this. A person wants to be a user, wants to get this information. Does he pay for it? THE WITNESS: Not on this site, no. THE COURT: Then it was just sexual gratification in seeing these pictures? THE WITNESS: I would surmise that for the people who would post this, yes. THE COURT: If you know, is there any monetary return to these people who engage in this sort of activity, or are they just getting their kicks, as the word is used colloquially? ( Id. at 235.) At that point, the defense raised an objection to the line of questioning, which the Court overruled. MacFarlane then continued: THE WITNESS: On this website, I did not see anything to indicate that it had a financial motive or there was any way you could pay for this. It was more of an exchange, meaning you give something to get something. That was not monetary, it was pictures. THE COURT: So what you're saying, it's your opinion it's the gratification of seeing the pictures. THE WITNESS: That would be my understanding of what these people would be motivated by, yes. ( Id. at 235-36.) Later in the trial, Bennett testified regarding the two posts that Christie admitted uploading under the screen name franklee. Specifically, Bennett testified that Christie acknowledged having submitted the posts and that Christie described them as fantasies. ( Id. at 608.) Although Bennett told the jury that one post concerned a nine year old in a supermarket and the other concerned becoming aroused while changing a baby's diaper, the government elicited no further information regarding the content of those posts. Bennett also testified that agents had discovered toys in Christie's apartment, and that Christie had explained that he used them to quiet rowdy children on his school bus. Christie objected to the testimony regarding the subjects of the posts as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and he objected to testimony concerning the toys as unduly prejudicial. The Court overruled those objections. It reasoned that the posts showed that Christie visited the NAMGLA site with the intent of exchanging child pornography. The Court permitted testimony about the toys after the government argued that it linked Christie to his occupation as a bus driver and therefore showed that he responded truthfully during the interrogation by Bennett. Trial lasted for eight days, after which the jury convicted Christie on all eight counts of the indictment. Christie filed a post-trial motion in which he argued that the jury's verdict should be vacated and the charges against him dismissed because of the government's allegedly outrageous conduct, namely, its lack of control over Lochmiller and its permitting Lochmiller to continue running the NAMGLA website, all in violation of the CI Guidelines. The Court denied that motion, concluding that, even if the CI Guidelines applied to Lochmiller, the FBI's failure to follow [them,] without more, does not constitute outrageous conduct worthy of setting aside a conviction. (App. at 79.)