U.S. v. C.R.

792 F.Supp.2d 343

UNITED STATES of America

v.C.R., Defendant.

No. 09–CR–155.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

May 16, 2011.

Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, By: Ali Kazemi Chantel Febus, for the Government.

Deirdre Von Dornum, Federal Defenders of New York, Louis Freeman, Freeman, Nooter & Ginsberg, New York, NY, Sam Talkin, Talkin, Muccigrusso & Roberts, L.L.P., New York, NY, for Defendant C.R.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge:

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦I.¦Introduction                               ¦347 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

II. Facts                                                               349

    A.   Defendant's Childhood                                          349
    B.   Sexual History                                                 351
    C.   Instant Offense                                                351
    D.   Guilty Plea                                                    353

         i.   Interpretation of the Statute—18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)      353
              Pressures on Defendants and Defense Counsel to Plead
         ii.  Guilty                                                    355
         iii. Content of Defendant's Files                              357
         iv.  Impact on Victims                                         360

    E.   Threat                                                         363

         i.   History                                                   364
         ii.  Industry                                                  367
         iii. Content                                                   370
         iv.  Viewers                                                   372
         v.   Relationship Between Viewing and Acting; Real and         375
              Perceived Harms

    F.   Effect on Abused Children                                      378

         i.  Abuse of Vicky and Punishment of Primary Abusers           388
         ii. Testimony                                                  389

            a.  Psychologist                                            389
            b.  Parents                                                 396
            c.  Punishment of Primary Abusers                           404

    G.   Events while Defendant Awaited Sentence                        406

         i.   Education, Employment, and Treatment                      407
         ii.  Bail Revocation Hearings                                  407
         iii. Mental Health Evaluations                                 408

                New York Center for Neuropsychology & Forensic
            a.  Behavioral Science Report                               408
            b.  Stutman Report                                          409
            c.  Bureau of Prisons Evaluation                            411
            d.  Hamill Report                                           411
            e.  Barr Report                                             412
            f.  Prentky Report                                          414
            g.  Sachsenmaier Report                                     415
            h.  Leonhard Treatment                                      416

    H.   Hearings on Protection of Public and Treatment of Defendant    417

         i.   Probation                                                 418
         ii.  Dr. Meg Kaplan                                            418
         iii. Dr. Susan Sachsenmaier                                    430
         iv.  Dr. Robert Prentky                                        433

    I.   Risk Assessment                                                445

         i.   Use of Static–99                                          446
         ii.  Universe for risk assessment and bias                     449
         iii. Coding                                                    453
         iv.  Development of Risk Assessment in Sentencing Generally    460

    J.   Bureau of Prisons Program For Sex Offenders                    466

         i.  Description                                                466
         ii. Trip of Court to Inspect Programs                          476

III. Law                                                                476

    A.   Statutory History                                              476

         i.   Federal Sentencing Scheme                                 476
         ii.  Mandatory Minimums                                        478
         iii. Child Pornography Legislation and Guidelines              478
         iv.  Judicial Interpretations                                  480
         v.   Public Policy Concerns                                    484
         vi.  Statute: Distribution of Child Pornography                486

    B.   Constitutional Issues                                          487

         i.   Separation of Powers                                      487
         ii.  First Amendment Exceptions                                487
         iii. Fourth Amendment                                          487
         iv.  Irrationality                                             487
         v.   Cruel and Unusual Punishment                              490

            a.  Proportionality                                         491
            b.  Excessive Child Pornography Incarceration Terms         494
            c.  Juvenile Limits                                         495
            d.  Science Supporting Immaturity Exception                 496

                1.  Studies                                             496
                2.  Testimony                                           502

            e.  Unconstitutionality as Applied                          506

IV. Application of Law to Facts                                         511
V.  Conclusion                                                          519

    A.   Appendix A: Tour of Federal Medical Center Devens              520
         Appendix B: Internet Technologies Providing Access to Child
    B.   Pornography                                                    524
         Appendix C: State Statutes on Juvenile Sentencing for Child
    C.   Pornography                                                    526
    D.   Appendix D: Bureau of Prisons Sex Offender Programs            566
    E.   Appendix E: Memorandum by Chief U.S. Probation Officer         594

I. Introduction

Defendant, C.R., pled guilty to “distribution” of child pornography he had obtained using a computer. Others shared his still and video images through a networking program. Access to the pictures he acquired were alleged to constitute electronic “distribution” of child pornography. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).

As indicated in Part II.D.iii, based upon defendant's allocution, he has not committed acts necessary to establish the crime charged. The guilty plea would not have been accepted if not for the strong urging of defendant and his counsel.

Defendant was nineteen years old at the time of the offense. He started using computers to view this material when he was fifteen.

C.R. is subject to a statutory minimum prison sentence of five-years, with a maximum of twenty years, and a Guidelines range of 63–78 months. There also must be imposed what may amount to lifetime control on defendant as a sex offender. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911, 16915(a)(1) (fifteen years for lowest risk federal offenders); § 16915(b) (possibility of early termination for federal offenders after ten years); N.Y. Corr. Law § 168–h(1) (twenty years for lowest risk offender).

As applied to this defendant and this case, the statutory minimum five-year sentence of imprisonment is unconstitutional. It is cruel and unusual. See Part III.B.v, infra. The Guidelines sentence is excessive.

Imposed is a thirty-month sentence for intensive medical treatment in prison. This will be followed by long-term post-prison curative therapy and strict control for many years under supervised release by the court's probation service. See Part IV, infra. Society will be best protected by this regimen rather than by a longer term of imprisonment; C.R. should be prepared to assume a useful law-abiding life rather than one of a broken and dangerous, ex-prisoner deviant. Were it not for Congress's strongly expressed preference for incarceration in these cases, the court would have imposed a long-term of supervised release with medical treatment outside of prison.

Further general or specific deterrence is not required. The adult who abused the child in one of the abhorrent known victim child pornography video series found on defendant's computer was sentenced to fifty years in prison. Another adult who stalked and harassed this child with pictures of her abuse was sentenced to twenty years in prison. See Part II.F.ii.c, infra.

This case illustrates some of the troubling problems in sentencing adolescents who download child pornography on a file-sharing computer service. Posed is the question: To protect the public and the abused children who are shown in a sexually explicit manner in computer images, do we need to destroy defendants like C.R.?

Widely shown video images are involved. While “[a]ny social problem that exists at the intersection of adolescence, sex, technology, and criminal law compels strong reactions from all sides ... it often results in sensationalism and oversimplification of complex and multifaceted issues making it more difficult to discuss the problem rationally and productively.” Mary G. Leary, Sexting or Self–Produced Child Pornography? The Dialogue Continues—Structured Prosecutorial Discretion within a Multidisciplinary Response. 17 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y. & L. 486, 487–88 (2010). Sexual development is complex and subtle. It varies widely with the...