United States v. Lawson Hardrick, Jr.

concurring:

Like Judge Noonan, I concur in the unanimous opinion of the court. Also, like Judge Noonan, I am disturbed about the practical impact of the child pornography laws upon otherwise law-abiding individuals. I do not agree, however, that advertising the legal consequences is a solution to the problem. Rather, it is my view that “psychological impairment” is in most, if not all, cases the cause of the criminal conduct. Whether psychiatric treatment rather than incarceration would be the proper response by state authorities is a matter that I would hope would be given more serious consideration than it has un *1058 til now. Surely sentences of five to twenty years for a first offense of viewing child pornography are not the solution. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (b)(1). Nor are mandatory sentences of fifteen to forty years for a second. See id.

My concern is not with those who produce or distribute child pornography for financial gain. Such individuals willfully do serious injury to the most vulnerable members of our society and deserve whatever punishment the law provides. Certainly no one can have much sympathy with those who prey upon young children in order to benefit…

concurring:

I concur in Judge Murguia’s opinion.

I write to underline the need for further action to discourage a crime whose actual extent is unknown but whose commission is increasingly prosecuted as a serious federal offense. As pointed out in a thoughtful communication by Alexandra Gelber, Assistant Deputy Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice: Those convicted of the crimes of possessing, receiving, or distributing child pornography typically have no criminal record but “include professors, teachers, coaches, fathers, lawyers, doctors, foster parents, adoption agency owners, and more.” See Alexandra Gelber, Response to “A Reluctant Rebellion” 7 (July 1, 2009), http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/downloads/ReluctantRebellionResponse.pdf. Obviously, lack of criminal history is not a defense. It is equally obvious that this kind of defendant is normally lawabiding and, unless suffering from some psychological impairment — the probability Judge Reinhardt effectively develops — could be expected to obey the law in this area if aware of its provisions and especially if aware of its sanctions. Why should the…

Opinion by Judge MURGUIA; Concurrence by Judge REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge NOONAN.

OPINION

Lawson Hardrick, Jr. was found guilty after a jury trial of two counts of knowingly receiving visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (a)(2). On appeal, Hardrick challenges the admission at his trial of evidence that he possessed other child pornography videos for which he was not charged. Hardrick also challenges the sufficiency of the government’s evidence that he knowingly received the two child pornography videos for which he was charged. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I.

In March 2010, the Department of Homeland Security identified two Internet Protocol (IP) addresses located at Har-drick’s home that were making child pornography available for download. Agents seized the two computers associated with the IP addresses from Hardrick’s home office. A forensic examination found several child pornography videos on each computer.

While the search warrant was being executed at Hardrick’s home, Hardrick admitted to using the file-sharing program Li-meWire to download pornography, but he denied…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50195 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 3:12-cr-03061-H-

LAWSON HARDRICK, JR., AKA

Lawson Hardrick, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 4, 2014—Pasadena, California

Filed September 4, 2014

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, John T. Noonan, and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Murguia; Concurrence by Judge Reinhardt; Concurrence by Judge Noonan SUMMARY*

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed a conviction on two counts of knowingly receiving visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).

The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of uncharged-video evidence admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice. The panel rejected the defendant’s argument that a limiting instruction at the close of the evidence…