United States v. Stern
2008 WL 5273714, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102802, 590 F. Supp. 2d 945 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sentencing court possesses broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence that varies significantly downward from the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, particularly in extraordinary child pornography possession cases where mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth at the time the offense began, substantial post-arrest rehabilitation, and low risk of recidivism are present.
Facts:
- At age 14, Evan M. Stern began viewing pornographic images of girls his own age.
- In 2004, the FBI and Pennsylvania Police, during an investigation into file-sharing servers, identified Stern, then a student at Kent State, as a user of child pornography.
- On October 18, 2005, FBI agents confronted Stern at his home, where he admitted to possessing child pornography, surrendered his computer, and explained how to access the unlawful files.
- Forensic analysis of Stern's computer identified in excess of 1000 images classified as child pornography.
- In the time between his arrest and formal charges, Stern sought therapy to address his conduct.
- A year after his arrest, Stern graduated from Kent State University.
- Stern subsequently became employed as a computer game designer and maintained productive relationships with family, friends, and a girlfriend.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States Government charged Evan M. Stern in a one-count information with possession of child pornography in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- Stern pled guilty to the charge without entering into a plea agreement with the government.
- The U.S. Probation Office prepared a presentence report which calculated an advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months of imprisonment.
- The District Court held a sentencing hearing where the government argued for a sentence within the Guidelines range, and Stern argued for a downward variance to a sentence of no imprisonment.
- The court took the matter under advisement before issuing its sentencing order.
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 a sentence of 12 months and 1 day, a significant downward variance from the 46-57 month advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, constitute a sentence that is 'sufficient, but not greater than necessary' under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for a defendant convicted of child pornography possession who began the offense as a minor and has demonstrated significant post-arrest rehabilitation?
Opinions:
Majority - Kathleen McDonald O'Malley, District Judge.
Yes. A sentence significantly below the advisory Guidelines range is sufficient and not greater than necessary where the extraordinary and unique circumstances of the defendant, weighed under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, render the Guideline sentence inappropriate. The court's reasoning rests on a comprehensive analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. First, regarding the 'nature of the offense and characteristics of the defendant,' the court found several compelling mitigating factors. Most critically, Stern began his criminal conduct at age 14, viewing images of peers, which distinguishes him from typical adult offenders whose conduct begins in adulthood. Furthermore, Stern demonstrated extraordinary post-arrest rehabilitation by graduating from college, seeking therapy, maintaining steady employment, and expressing genuine remorse. Psychiatrists also found him to be at an exceedingly low risk of recidivism. Second, analyzing the 'purposes of sentencing,' the court concluded that the Guidelines range was not necessary for deterrence, incapacitation, or just punishment in this specific case. While the offense is heinous, a 12-month sentence provides just punishment and general deterrence without being excessively punitive or undermining Stern's rehabilitation. Third, the court heavily criticized the child pornography Sentencing Guidelines themselves, noting they are 'less reliable' and 'illogical' because they are not based on empirical data like other guidelines and have been raised due to political pressure, not penological expertise. Finally, the court acknowledged the wide and unjust national disparities in sentencing for these crimes and positioned its sentence as a reasonable outcome when compared to factually similar cases, while still exercising its independent judgment that some period of incarceration was necessary.
Analysis:
This memorandum and order serves as a prominent example of a district court exercising its substantive sentencing discretion after the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker. The court's detailed § 3553(a) analysis provides a clear framework for justifying a significant downward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, particularly in cases with compelling, defendant-specific mitigating factors. The opinion's sharp critique of the non-empirical basis for the child pornography guidelines reflects a broader judicial skepticism and contributes to the legal discourse on sentencing reform. This case establishes a persuasive authority for future defendants who can demonstrate a similar combination of youth at the time of the offense's inception and profound post-offense rehabilitation.
