Case Law United States v. D.M.

United States v. D.M.

Document Cited Authorities (47) Cited in (22) Related

942 F.Supp.2d 327

UNITED STATES of America,

v.D.M., Defendant.

No. 12–CR–170.

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

May 3, 2013.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Loretta E. Lynch, Esq., United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York by Hilary L. Jager, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, for Government.

David M. Chidekel, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant.

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM, HEARING AND ORDER

JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge:

+-------------------+
¦Table of Contents  ¦
+-------------------¦
¦                   ¦
+-------------------+

+--------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Introduction                       ¦329 ¦
+---+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦                                   ¦    ¦
+---+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Facts and Procedural History       ¦330 ¦
+--------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Offense                           ¦330 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦B.¦Pre–Arrest Conduct                ¦331 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦C.¦Indictment and Post–Arrest Conduct¦331 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦D.¦Guilty Plea                       ¦332 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦E.¦Victim Impact                     ¦333 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦F.¦Sentencing Hearing                ¦333 ¦
+----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                               ¦     ¦
+----+-----------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦III.¦Testimony of Treating Therapists and Experts   ¦334  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦A.  ¦Expert Testimony at Sentencing Necessary                 ¦334    ¦
+-----+----+---------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦     ¦B.  ¦Unanimous Recommendations of Treating Therapists and     ¦336    ¦
¦     ¦    ¦Experts for Non–Incarceration                            ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Treating Therapists                 ¦337 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦a)¦Dr. Richard Krueger                          ¦337   ¦
+----+---+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦b)¦Dr. Meg S. Kaplan                            ¦338   ¦
+----+---+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦c)¦Dr. Douglas Martinez                         ¦339   ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Non–Treating Experts                ¦340 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦a)¦Dr. Cheryl Paridis                           ¦340   ¦
+----+---+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦b)¦Dr. N.G. Berrill and Dr. Jennifer A. McCarthy¦341   ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                   ¦    ¦
+---+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦IV.¦Sentencing Law                     ¦341 ¦
+---+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦                                   ¦    ¦
+---+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦V. ¦Application of Law to Facts        ¦343 ¦
+--------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Guidelines Calculation         ¦343¦
+---+--+-------------------------------+---¦
¦   ¦B.¦Section 3553(a) Factors        ¦344¦
+------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦    ¦1. ¦Sufficient But Not Greater Than Necessary             ¦344   ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦    ¦2. ¦Nature and Circumstances of the Offense; History and  ¦344   ¦
¦     ¦    ¦   ¦Characteristics of the Defendant                      ¦      ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦    ¦3. ¦Reflect the Purposes of Sentencing                    ¦345   ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦    ¦4. ¦Kinds of Sentences Available and Sentencing Range     ¦347   ¦
¦     ¦    ¦   ¦Established                                           ¦      ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦    ¦5. ¦Guidelines, Policy, and Other Criteria of the         ¦347   ¦
¦     ¦    ¦   ¦Sentencing Commission                                 ¦      ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦    ¦6. ¦Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities                ¦347   ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦    ¦7. ¦Provide Restitution                                   ¦349   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦C.¦Public Policy                  ¦349¦
+---+--+-------------------------------+---¦
¦   ¦D.¦Sentence Imposed               ¦352¦
+------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                               ¦     ¦
+----+-----------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦VI. ¦Conclusion                                     ¦352  ¦
+----+-----------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦    ¦                                               ¦     ¦
+----+-----------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦VII.¦Appendix                                       ¦353  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Professional Background of Experts¦353 ¦
+----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Richard B. Krueger, M.D.            ¦353 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Meg S. Kaplan, Ph.D.                ¦353 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Douglas Martinez, Ph.D              ¦354 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦Cheryl Paradis, Psy. D.             ¦354 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦5.¦N.G. Berrill, Ph.D.                 ¦354 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦6.¦Jennifer A. McCarthy, Ph.D.         ¦354 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦B.  ¦Transcript of Conference of Expert Discussion with the   ¦355    ¦
¦     ¦    ¦Court                                                    ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I. Introduction

This case illustrates the sensible cooperation of prosecutor, defense, experts and the court to save rather than destroy an adolescent found to have used his computer to view child pornography.

This defendant, D.M., was originally charged with receiving and possessing child pornography, requiring a minimum prison sentence of five years. Following a guilty plea, at a hearing on March 22, 2013, defendant, now age 22, was sentenced for one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Imposed was a non-Guidelines sentence of five years' probation with substantial continuing controls and treatment. See Part V.D, infra (outlining specifics of sentence). The reasons for the sentence were orally explained in open court. They are elaborated upon in this memorandum.

Defendant admits to having possessed several hundred still images and video files of children engaging in sexually explicit conduct. When he was an adolescent, he obtained them from the Internet on his home computers. His treating therapists and the parties' experts are in agreement with the court that he suffers from a treatable pornography obsession that began in his early teenage years. There was no evidence that the defendant produced any such materials.

Apart from using a computer, defendant has never acted out against a child or anyone else. Demonstrated by convincing evidence is that he poses no current or future risk to any child or adult. Since his collection of child pornography was discovered by the government, defendant has undergone nearly two years of successful therapeutic treatment. Expert witnesses presented by both the government and defendant recommend that this treatment continue in a non-incarceratory environment and that a term of imprisonment is not required to avoid any danger to the public. Defendant is found by the experts to be fully capable of utilizing therapeutic treatment while under strict control of the court's Probation Department. See Part III.B., infra.

The crime is serious. Punishment is required. Defendant's guilty plea will result in the stain of a federal felony conviction for a sex-related crime. Extensive restrictions affecting where he can live and work, and how he will be controlled, will follow him for many years.

Having been convicted of a crime of possession—and not production, receipt or distribution—of child pornography, no statutory mandatory term of imprisonment is required. Outside the ambit...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2016
United States v. R.V.
"...United States v. C.R., 972 F.Supp.2d 457, 459 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (problems with enforcing statutory minimums); United States v. D.M., 942 F.Supp.2d 327 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (sentencing defendant who pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography to five years' probation); United States v..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2016
United States v. E.L.
"...(same); United States v. Florez Parra , No. 14–CR–332, 2015 WL 105885, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2015) (same); United States v. D.M. , 942 F.Supp.2d 327, 352 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (sentencing defendant who pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography to five years' probation); R.V. , ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee – 2018
United States v. Austin
"...it recommends." United States v. Diaz, 720 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1041 (E.D. Wis. 2010) (collecting cases); see also United States v. D.M., 942 F.Supp.2d 327, 351 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (collecting authority for the proposition that child pornography Guidelines are entitled to little deference). That sai..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2019
Zuress v. City of Newark
"...how frivolous, thus validating the case sufficiently to avoid summary judgment and force the matter to trial."'United States v. D.M., 942 F. Supp. 2d 327, 335 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Jack B. Weinstein, Improving Expert Testimony, 20 U. RICH. L. REV. 473, 482 (1986)). The reality that exper..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2013
United States v. C.R.
"...Laws (Feb. 16, 2012)(unpublished manuscript), available at http:// ssrn. com/ abstract= 2006664. See also United States v. D.M., 12–CR–170, 942 F.Supp.2d 327 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (accepting plea of defendant to a non-minimum sentence possession count where evidence might have supported five or te..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2016
United States v. R.V.
"...United States v. C.R., 972 F.Supp.2d 457, 459 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (problems with enforcing statutory minimums); United States v. D.M., 942 F.Supp.2d 327 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (sentencing defendant who pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography to five years' probation); United States v..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2016
United States v. E.L.
"...(same); United States v. Florez Parra , No. 14–CR–332, 2015 WL 105885, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2015) (same); United States v. D.M. , 942 F.Supp.2d 327, 352 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (sentencing defendant who pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography to five years' probation); R.V. , ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee – 2018
United States v. Austin
"...it recommends." United States v. Diaz, 720 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1041 (E.D. Wis. 2010) (collecting cases); see also United States v. D.M., 942 F.Supp.2d 327, 351 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (collecting authority for the proposition that child pornography Guidelines are entitled to little deference). That sai..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2019
Zuress v. City of Newark
"...how frivolous, thus validating the case sufficiently to avoid summary judgment and force the matter to trial."'United States v. D.M., 942 F. Supp. 2d 327, 335 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Jack B. Weinstein, Improving Expert Testimony, 20 U. RICH. L. REV. 473, 482 (1986)). The reality that exper..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2013
United States v. C.R.
"...Laws (Feb. 16, 2012)(unpublished manuscript), available at http:// ssrn. com/ abstract= 2006664. See also United States v. D.M., 12–CR–170, 942 F.Supp.2d 327 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (accepting plea of defendant to a non-minimum sentence possession count where evidence might have supported five or te..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.