United States v. Wright
2010 WL 4345670, 625 F.3d 583, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23038 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the pre-2008 version of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1), the jurisdictional requirement that child pornography be transported "in interstate commerce" requires the government to prove that the prohibited images themselves physically crossed state lines. Mere use of the internet as an instrumentality of interstate commerce is insufficient when there is undisputed evidence that the transmission was purely intrastate.
Facts:
- From an FBI office in Tucson, Arizona, Special Agent Robin Andrews conducted an undercover search on an IRC file-sharing program.
- Andrews connected with a user named "azgymguy2" in online chat rooms and established a direct file-sharing connection.
- Andrews downloaded multiple files from azgymguy2's computer to her own computer, a number of which were child pornography.
- Both Andrews's and azgymguy2's computers were located in Tucson, Arizona, during the file transfers.
- A government expert testified that while the initial connection to the IRC network involved out-of-state servers, the subsequent direct client-to-client file transfer itself did not cross state lines.
- The FBI matched the "azgymguy2" internet connection to Jason Wright's home address and executed a search warrant, seizing his computer.
- Approximately one week after the search, Wright's roommate, Shawn Dittfurth, disappeared from their shared apartment.
- Wright's defense was that Dittfurth was responsible for the child pornography on his computer.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. government charged Jason Wright in a superseding indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
- The indictment included Count 2 for transporting child pornography and Count 3 for possessing child pornography.
- Wright filed a motion to suppress statements made during police questioning, which the trial court denied without making detailed factual findings.
- Following a jury trial, Wright was convicted on Counts 2 and 3 but acquitted on several other counts.
- The district court sentenced Wright to 121 months imprisonment for Count 2 and 60 months for Count 3, to be served concurrently.
- Wright (Appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the U.S. government as Appellee.
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 'transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce' in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1), as it existed in 2003, require the government to prove that the prohibited materials themselves physically crossed state lines?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge M. Smith
Yes, the phrase 'transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce' requires the government to prove the prohibited materials physically crossed state lines. A plain reading of the statute requires some method of interstate travel for the material itself. The court distinguished Congress's use of the limited phrase 'in commerce,' which requires actual movement between states, from broader jurisdictional language like 'affecting commerce.' Precedent interpreting similarly-worded criminal statutes consistently required the actual crossing of state lines. The court rejected the government's argument that the initial interstate IRC connection could serve as a predicate act, as this would conflate the transportation crime with an advertising crime of which Wright was acquitted. Finally, the court found that the 2008 congressional amendment that broadened the statute's language was a substantial change, not a clarification, and thus did not apply retroactively to Wright's 2003 offense.
Concurring - Judge Hug
Yes, Judge Hug agreed with the majority's conclusion that the 'in interstate commerce' requirement was not met for the transportation count (Count 2). However, he disagreed with the majority's decision to remand the case for further factual findings on the motion to suppress. He believed the district court's denial of the motion implicitly resolved the credibility dispute between Wright and the law enforcement officers in the officers' favor, and he would have affirmed the conviction on the possession count (Count 3) without remand.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the 'in interstate commerce' jurisdictional hook in federal statutes, aligning it with the First and Tenth Circuits. It establishes that, for the pre-2008 version of the child pornography transportation statute, prosecutors cannot rely on the internet's general interstate nature and must prove the actual contraband crossed state lines. This case serves as a key example for students on statutory interpretation, particularly the distinction between different Commerce Clause phrases ('in commerce' vs. 'affecting commerce') and how courts view subsequent legislative amendments as either clarifying or substantively changing prior law.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Wright