United States v. Echols

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. TERRION ECHOLS, Defendant

No. 4:24-cr-40019

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division

September 19, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO JUVENILE COURT

LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for transfer to juvenile court. (Doc. 27, 34). The Government resists the motion. (Doc. 39). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion on September 16, 2024. For the following reasons the motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

Defendant has been indicted on a charge of transportation of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(1) and 2252A(b)(1). Defendant is alleged to have transported child pornography by uploading graphic images and video files depicting one or more minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct between September 5, 2023, and December 11 2023. The Government's allegation is that Defendant added a folder to his Dropbox account and copied most of the files from his existing folder into the new one at that time. Both folders were located in his existing account. Defendant was nineteen at the time.

Defendant testified at the evidentiary hearing and denied both the charge and that he created the Dropbox file in 2019. On his behalf, Defense Counsel has moved to transfer the case to juvenile court, asserting Defendant was a juvenile when the Dropbox account was created and when the original folder was added to it in 2019. Substantively, Defendant argues copying the folder in 2023 does not constitute a violation of the statutes charged. With respect to Defendant's juvenile status, Defense Counsel asserts that all actions to create the folder occurred when Defendant was a juvenile, and therefore, he cannot be prosecuted as an adult.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5037 provides certain protections for an individual who is under the age of eighteen and commits an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult. A juvenile cannot be proceeded against in federal court unless the Attorney General follows the certification process set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 5032. United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003). The procedures are jurisdictional. Id. Accord United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347, 1363 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. Jones, 2023 WL 4684664, *3 (D. Conn. July 21, 2023). For purposes of disposition, a defendant may invoke the protections of the Act if he or she has not yet reached the age of 21. 18 U.S.C. § 5031.

An indictment “fair upon its face” and returned by a properly constituted grand jury “conclusively determines the existence of probable cause” to believe the defendant committed the offense. Kaley v United States, 571 U.S. 320, 328 (2014) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 117 n. 19 (1975)). This applies to all of the allegations in the charge. Id. An individual may lodge a challenge by coming forward with supporting evidence, such as evidence of juvenile status. See, e.g., United States v. C.L.T., 207 F.Supp.3d 1054, 1057 (D.S.D. 2016). Once the defendant does so, the government must rebut that evidence by a preponderance. Id. (citing authority and discussing burden shifting framework). See also United States v. Alvarez-Porras, 643 F.2d 54, 67 (2d Cir. 1981) (holding that age is not an element of drug offense and burden may be placed on defendant to come forward with evidence of juvenile status); United States v. Salgado-Ocampo, 50 F.Supp.2d 908, 909 (D. Minn. 1999) (to prove defendant's age at time of offense, Government must make prima facie showing, defendant can come forward with evidence of age, and Government has the opportunity to offer rebuttal).

A court presumes the allegations in an indictment are true for purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss based on the Juvenile Delinquency Act. United States v. Mendez, 28 F.4th 1320, 1323-24 (9th Cir. 2022). As a general rule, an individual may be charged as an adult for conduct that spans juvenile and adult status, such as a conspiracy. Id. See also United States v. McClaren, 13 F.4th 386, 408 (5th Cir. 2021) (for prosecution as an adult, a defendant who commits certain acts as part of a conspiracy as a juvenile, must ratify involvement in the conspiracy after becoming an adult).

In the evidentiary hearing before the Court on September 16, 2024, the Defendant raised the issue of what conduct amounts to “transportation” of child pornography. Defense Counsel's aim in doing so was to argue that if the alleged 2023 conduct did not constitute transportation, the only remaining course for the Government would be to prosecute Defendant for the 2015 actions of allegedly creating the folder. Defendant was fifteen years old at that time. Defense Counsel cited to United States v. Clarke as authority for a working definition of the term “transportation.” 979 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2020). The Court agrees this is helpful authority. In Clarke, the defendant downloaded files into a peer-to-peer filesharing network in a folder that could have been accessed by others. Id. at 86-87 (citing description of such a network in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913, 919-20 (2005)). As Counsel suggested, the court's discussion of transportation as encompassing use of a file-sharing network, downloading material, and making files accessible to outsiders is useful in interpreting the term in the instant context. These concepts address the merits of the charges Defendant is facing, however, and do not alone resolve the issue before the Court. Furthermore, in discussing the proffered authority on the merits of the case and acknowledging that it is helpful to an understanding of the issues, the Court makes no judgment on the merits and reaffirms that the presumption of innocence applies to Defendant.

ANALYSIS

Based on the testimony and arguments presented at the September 16 2024, hearing and the briefs submitted by the parties, the Court summarizes the evidence as follows. The Government has charged the Defendant with transportation of child pornography between September 5, 2023, and December 11, 2023. At the time, Defendant was nineteen and then turned twenty years old. The alleged transportation appears to have occurred when Defendant copied a folder in his Dropbox account into a...