United States v. Dauray
215 F.3d 257 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a criminal statute is grievously ambiguous about the conduct it prohibits, even after applying canons of construction, the rule of lenity requires that the ambiguity be resolved in the defendant's favor to ensure due process and fair warning.
Facts:
- On May 13, 1994, Charles Dauray was in his car in a Connecticut state park.
- An officer of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection approached Dauray's vehicle.
- The officer discovered Dauray was in possession of thirteen unbound pictures of minors.
- The pictures consisted of pieces of magazine pages and photocopies of those pages.
- It was stipulated that the visual depictions were transported in interstate commerce.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Charles Dauray on one count of possessing child pornography in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- Dauray filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute did not cover the possession of individual pictures.
- The district court reserved its decision on the motion until after trial.
- A jury found Dauray guilty, specifying by special interrogatory that four of the possessed items met the statutory definition.
- After the verdict, the district court denied Dauray's motion to dismiss, holding that the pictures were 'other matter' under the statute.
- Dauray was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment.
- Dauray appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the phrase 'other matter which contain any visual depiction,' as used in the pre-amendment version of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), unambiguously include individual, unbound pictures cut from a magazine?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobs, Circuit Judge
No. The phrase 'other matter which contain any visual depiction' is ambiguous and does not clearly include individual, unbound pictures. The plain meaning of 'contain' is ambiguous; it can mean 'to hold within' (favoring Dauray) or 'to comprise' (favoring the government). Canons of statutory construction, such as noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, fail to resolve this ambiguity, as the preceding list of 'books, magazines, periodicals, films, [or] video tapes' can be interpreted either as a class of containers or as a general class of physical media. The broader statutory structure and legislative history provide no clarity, and either interpretation leads to absurd results. Because a reasonable doubt persists about the statute's intended scope after exhausting all tools of statutory interpretation, the rule of lenity must be applied to resolve the ambiguity in the defendant's favor, as required by the due process principle of fair warning.
Dissenting - Katzmann, Circuit Judge
Yes. The statutory phrase is not so grievously ambiguous as to require applying the rule of lenity. The rule is not warranted by the 'simple existence of some statutory ambiguity,' and the term 'contain' can plausibly mean 'comprise' without creating grievous uncertainty. It is natural to understand that a photograph 'contains' a visual depiction, consistent with the statute's purpose. While the statute may lead to some incongruous results, the court's duty is to apply the provision as written, and the language is not sufficiently ambiguous to justify reversing the conviction.
Analysis:
This decision is a quintessential application of the rule of lenity, a cornerstone of criminal statutory interpretation. It underscores the judiciary's refusal to expand the scope of criminal statutes beyond what the text clearly proscribes, thereby upholding the due process requirement of fair warning. The case serves as a critical reminder to legislators of the importance of precision in drafting criminal laws, as ambiguity will be construed against the government. This precedent strengthens the position of defendants charged under vaguely worded statutes and forces prosecutors to demonstrate that the prohibited conduct falls 'plainly and unmistakably' within the law's provisions.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Dauray