United States v. Silva, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Silva, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1764

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

GERALD J . SI LVA,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF RHODE I SLAND

[ Hon. Wi l l i am E. Smi t h, Chi ef U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Lynch, Kayat t a, and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Robert B. Mann, wi t h whomMann and Mi t chel l was on br i ef , f orappel l ant .

Donal d C. Lockhar t , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Pet er F. Ner onha, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

J ul y 20, 2015


2/24

- 2 -

BARRON, Circuit Judge. Ger al d Si l va r ai ses a number of

chal l enges t o hi s convi ct i ons f or r ecei pt and possessi on of chi l d

por nogr aphy, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 2252( a) ( 2) and ( 4) . Si l va

f i r st cont ends t hat t he chi l d por nogr aphy st at ut es under whi ch he

was charged were unconst i t ut i onal l y vague. He t hen argues t hat

t he Di st r i ct Cour t shoul d have di smi ssed one count of t he

i ndi ct ment f or whi ch, he cont ends, t here was no evi dence submi t t ed

t o t he gr and j ur y. He al so ar gues that t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused

i t s di scret i on i n bar r i ng t he t est i mony of Si l va' s pr oposed exper t

wi t ness and i n i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y. And f i nal l y, Si l va ar gues

t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t wr ongl y deni ed hi s mot i on f or a j udgment

of acqui t t al under Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 29. We f i nd

no mer i t t o any of t hese chal l enges and t her ef or e af f i r m t he

convi cti on.

I.

Accor di ng t o evi dence of f er ed at t r i al , t hi s case ar i ses

f r om an i nvest i gat i on by Canadi an pol i ce who, i n cooper at i on wi t h

l aw enf or cement i n the Uni t ed St at es, wer e i nvest i gat i ng a company,

Azov Fi l ms, due t o i t s al l eged pr oduct i on and di st r i but i on of

mat er i al s f eat ur i ng nude, young boys. Azov oper at ed a websi t e

t hat of f er ed a var i et y of mat er i al s, i ncl udi ng some f i l ms pr oduced

by other compani es and some Azov- pr oduced f i l ms. A Uni t ed St ates

post al i nspector t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat t her e had been ci t i zen


3/24

- 3 -

compl ai nt s " i n whi ch peopl e st at ed t hat t hey wer e sel l i ng chi l d

pornogr aphy on t he websi t e. "

On May 1, 2011, Canadi an aut hor i t i es execut ed a search

warr ant on Azov' s Toront o pr emi ses and shut down t he websi t e.

Canadi an l aw enf or cement sei zed busi ness r ecor ds - - i ncl udi ng

cust omer pur chase and shi ppi ng i nf ormat i on - - and passed t he

r ecor ds al ong t o t he Uni t ed St at es Post al I nspect i on Ser vi ce. The

r ecor ds l i st ed Ger al d Si l va as a cust omer and showed t hat he pl aced

t went y- t wo or der s bet ween Oct ober 2010 and Apr i l 2011 and bought

sevent y- f i ve i t ems, el even of whi ch ar e l i st ed i n t he i ndi ct ment .

Si l va was char ged wi t h si x count s of r ecei pt of chi l d

por nogr aphy i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 2252( a) ( 2) and wi t h one

count of possessi on of chi l d por nogr aphy i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

2252( a) ( 4) . Si l va was f ound gui l t y on al l count s af t er a j ur y

t r i al i n t he Di st r i ct of Rhode I sl and. He was sent enced t o a 72-

mont h t erm of i mpr i sonment . He now appeal s.

II.

We begi n wi t h Si l va' s chal l enge t o t he const i t ut i onal i t y

of t he st at ut e. The st at ut or y pr ovi si ons under whi ch Si l va was

char ged bot h def i ne chi l d por nogr aphy as " any vi sual

depi ct i on . . . i f - - ( A) t he pr oduci ng of such vi sual depi ct i on

i nvol ves t he use of a mi nor engagi ng i n sexual l y expl i ci t conduct ;

and ( B) such vi sual depi ct i on i s of such conduct . " 18 U. S. C.

2252( a) ( 2) ; see al so i d. 2252( a) ( 4) . The st at ut e cross-


4/24

- 4 -

r ef er enced by t hese measur es def i nes " sexual l y expl i ci t conduct "

t o i ncl ude t he "l asci vi ous exhi bi t i on of t he geni t al s or pubi c

ar ea of any per son. " I d. 2256( 2) ( A) ( v) . 1

Si l va cont ends t hat "l asci vi ous exhi bi t i on" i s t oo vague

t o pr ovi de not i ce of what depi ct i ons f al l wi t hi n t he def i ni t i on of

chi l d por nogr aphy and to pr ovi de st andar ds f or l aw enf or cement t o

pr event t he ar bi t r ar y enf or cement of t he st at ut e. He t her ef or e

cont ends t hat hi s convi ct i ons under t he st at ut es vi ol at e hi s Fi f t h

Amendment due pr ocess r i ght s, a chal l enge we r evi ew de novo.

Uni t ed St at es v. Zhen Zhou Wu, 711 F. 3d 1, 11- 12 (1st Ci r . 2013) .

The Supreme Cour t i n Uni t ed Stat es v. X- Ci t ement Vi deo,

I nc. , 513 U. S. 64 ( 1994) , however , r ej ect ed a const i t ut i onal

vagueness chal l enge t o t he same def i ni t i onal pr ovi si on of t he

st at ut e. The Cour t descr i bed t he vagueness cl ai m r ai sed by t he

def endant s as " i nsubst ant i al , " and adopt ed t he reasoni ng of t he

Ni nt h Ci r cui t . I d. at 78- 79. The Cour t of Appeal s had f ound t hat

"' [ l ] asci vi ous' [ was] no di f f er ent i n i t s meani ng t han ' l ewd, ' a

commonsensi cal t er m whose const i t ut i onal i t y [ had been]

speci f i cal l y uphel d i n" t he Supr eme Cour t ' s pr i or pr ecedent s.

1 The f ul l t ext of t he def i ni t i on i n 18 U. S. C. 2256( 2) ( A)pr ovi des:

" [ S] exual l y expl i ci t conduct " means act ual ors i mul at ed - - ( i ) sexual i nt er cour se . . . ;( i i ) best i al i t y; ( i i i ) masturbat i on; ( i v)sadi st i c or masochi st i c abuse; or ( v)l asci vi ous exhi bi t i on of t he geni t al s or pubi car ea of any per son; . . . .


5/24

- 5 -

Uni t ed St at es v. X- Ci t ement Vi deo, I nc. , 982 F. 2d 1285, 1288 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1992) ( ci t i ng Mi l l er v. Cal i f or ni a, 413 U. S. 15 ( 1973) , and

New Yor k v. Fer ber , 458 U. S. 747 ( 1982) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Frabi zi o, 459 F. 3d 80, 85 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( "The cour t s ar e al so

i n agr eement t hat t he t er m ' l asci vi ous' i s suf f i ci ent l y wel l

def i ned t o pr ovi de . . . not i ce of what i s per mi ssi bl e and what i s

i mper mi ssi bl e. ") . Si l va' s const i t ut i onal due pr ocess chal l enge i s

t hus wi t hout mer i t .

III.

Si l va next chal l enges t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deni al of hi s

mot i on t o di smi ss count seven of t he i ndi ct ment , whi ch charged

Si l va wi t h knowi ng possessi on of chi l d por nogr aphy under 18 U. S. C.

2252( a) ( 4) . Si l va cont ends t he gr and j ur y hear d no evi dence t o

suppor t count seven and t hus t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n

denyi ng hi s pr et r i al mot i on t o di smi ss i t . But see Kal ey v. Uni t ed

St at es, 134 S. Ct . 1090, 1098 ( 2014) ( "The gr and j ur y get s t o say

- - wi t hout any r evi ew, over si ght , or second- guessi ng - - whet her

pr obabl e cause exi st s t o thi nk t hat a per son commi t t ed a cr i me. " ) ;

Cost el l o v. Uni t ed St at es, 350 U. S. 359, 363- 64 ( 1956) . But t he

gr and j ur y cl ear l y hear d evi dence t o suppor t count seven as i t was

wr i t t en i n t he i ndi ct ment and t hus t he ar gument Si l va makes i s

wi t hout f oundat i on. 2

2 Count seven of t he i ndi ct ment st at ed:


6/24

- 6 -

That i s so even t hough Si l va cont ends t hat t her e was no

evi dence t o support count seven as i t was f r amed i n a subsequent l y

f ur ni shed bi l l of par t i cul ar s. That bi l l of par t i cul ar s, whi ch

t he gover nment pr ovi ded Si l va i n r esponse t o hi s mot i on r equest i ng

t hat i t do so, di d i dent i f y t hr ee speci f i c f i l ms t hat woul d be

used as evi dence f or count seven at t r i al , whi l e t he count set

f or t h i n t he i ndi ct ment i t sel f was not l i mi t ed t o any par t i cul ar

f i l ms. But t he bi l l of par t i cul ar s i s not t he i ndi ctment , and

t hus t he speci f i ci t y of t he bi l l of par t i cul ar s does not change

t he f act t hat t he gover nment suppl i ed t he gr and j ur y wi t h evi dence

t o suppor t count seven of t he i ndi ct ment as i t was st at ed. See

Rober t s v. Uni t ed St at es, 752 A. 2d 583, 592 ( D. C. 2000) ( "Al t hough

t he speci f i c det ai l s of t he car nal knowl edge i nci dent speci f i ed i n

t he bi l l of par t i cul ar s had not been i ndi vi dual l y pr esent ed t o t he

gr and j ur y, t hat body hear d ampl e evi dence of t he ent i r e ser i es of

event s of whi ch t hat i nci dent was a par t . " ) . The Di st r i ct Cour t

From i n or about Apr i l 2010 t o on or aboutSept ember 27, 2012, i n t he Di st r i ct of RhodeI sl and and el sewher e, t he def endant , GERALD J .SI LVA, di d knowi ngl y possess one or moremat t er s whi ch cont ai ned a vi sual depi ct i on ofsexual l y expl i ci t conduct , t he pr oduct i on ofwhi ch i nvol ved t he use of a mi nor engagi ng i nsexual l y expl i ci t conduct , t hat had beent r anspor t ed i n i nt er st at e and f or ei gn commer ceand whi ch was produced usi ng mater i al s whi chhad been t r anspor t ed i n i nt er st at e and f or ei gncommer ce. Al l i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.2252( a) ( 4) .


7/24

- 7 -

t her ef or e pr oper l y rej ect ed Si l va' s chal l enge t o the suf f i ci ency

of t he evi dence bef or e t he gr and j ur y. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Capozzi , 486 F. 3d 711, 727 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

IV.

Si l va al so ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n

pr event i ng t he t est i mony of t he def endant ' s proposed exper t

wi t ness. We r evi ew t hi s r ul i ng f or abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed

St at es v. Tet i oukhi ne, 725 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Si l va of f er ed Pr of essor J ohn Leo, a r et i r ed Pr of essor of

Engl i sh f r om t he Uni ver si t y of Rhode I sl and, as an exper t under

Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 702. The Di st r i ct Cour t conduct ed an

evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t he mat t er , at whi ch Pr of essor Leo

t est i f i ed. The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen decl i ned t o per mi t Pr of essor

Leo t o appear as an exper t wi t ness.

Si l va ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n excl udi ng

Pr of essor Leo s t est i mony because Si l va asser t s i t "woul d have

hel ped t he j ur y under st and t he pi ct ur es" because Pr of essor Leo' s

" t echni cal under st andi ng of f i l m" woul d have "enhance[ d] t he

[ j ur y' s] under st andi ng of t he vi deos i n quest i on i n t hi s case. "

I n par t i cul ar , Si l va cont ends t hat Pr of essor Leo was expect ed t o

t est i f y t o hi s opi ni on t hat t he set t i ngs f or t he f i l ms wer e

gener al l y not sexual l y suggest i ve, and t hat t he poses and conduct

of t he chi l dr en wer e not suggest i ve.


8/24

- 8 -

The Di st r i ct Cour t has di scr et i on, however , t o eval uat e

whet her an exper t wi t ness wi l l pr ovi de hel pf ul t est i mony i n t hi s

cont ext . See Fr abi zi o, 459 F. 3d at 85 & n. 8 ( " [ W] het her a gi ven

depi ct i on i s l asci vi ous i s a quest i on of f act f or t he j ur y" and

"exper t t est i mony i s not r equi r ed on t he subj ect . " ) ; Uni t ed St at es

v. Ar vi n, 900 F. 2d 1385, 1390 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) ( "Because t he j ur y

was f ul l y capabl e of maki ng i t s own det er mi nat i on on t he i ssue of

' l asci vi ousness, ' t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on

i n excl udi ng t he exper t t est i mony. " ) ; cf . Haml i ng v. Uni t ed St at es,

418 U. S. 87, 100 ( 1974) ( "Exper t t est i mony i s not necessar y to

enabl e t he j ur y t o j udge t he obsceni t y of mat er i al whi ch, as her e,

has been pl aced i nt o evi dence. " ) . And her e we see no er r or i n t he

Di st r i ct Cour t ' s r easonabl e assessment and excl usi on of t he

pr oposed exper t t est i mony. See Ar vi n, 900 F. 2d at 1390.

The Di st r i ct Cour t eval uat ed t he t est i mony t hat

Pr of essor Leo expect ed t o of f er and consi der ed "t he rel i abi l i t y

and hel pf ul ness of t he pr oposed exper t t est i mony, t he i mpor t ance

and t he qual i t y of t he eyewi t ness evi dence i t addr esses, and any

t hr eat of conf usi on, mi sl eadi ng of t he j ur y, or unnecessar y del ay. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Ber r os, 573 F. 3d 55, 71 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) . The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen suppor t abl y f ound t hat Prof essor

Leo di d not pur por t t o "know any of t he pur poses or r easons why a

pur chaser woul d pur chase t hese vi deos, " t hat he "di d not expr ess

any exper t i se t hat woul d al l ow hi m t o hel p t he j ur y on t he why or


9/24

- 9 -

t he i nt ent of t he pr oducer , " and t hat he di d not "appear t o have

any opi ni ons about " Eur opean f i l m, nudi t y, or nudi sm. And as t o

t he poi nt s t hat Si l va expect ed Pr of essor Leo t o make i n hi s t r i al

t est i mony, t he Di st r i ct Cour t r easonabl y concl uded t hat t he j ur or s

coul d r each t hei r own concl usi ons about t he cont ent s of t he f i l ms

f r om t hei r own vi ewi ng. See Uni t ed St at es v. Mehanna, 735 F. 3d

32, 67 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( " I t i s common gr ound t hat a t r i al cour t

may bar exper t t est i mony i f t hat t est i mony wi l l not assi st t he

j ury t o sor t out cont est ed i ssues. " ) .

Nor di d t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r i n pr event i ng Pr of essor

Leo f r om t est i f yi ng as a summar y wi t ness under Feder al Rul e of

Evi dence 1006, whi ch permi t s summari es " t o pr ove t he cont ent of

vol umi nous wr i t i ngs, r ecor di ngs, or phot ogr aphs t hat cannot be

conveni ent l y exami ned i n cour t . " See Uni t ed St at es v. Casas, 356

F. 3d 104, 119 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( appl yi ng Fed. R. Evi d. 1006 t o a

summar y wi t ness) . Her e, t oo, we r evi ew f or an abuse of di scr et i on.

See Tet i oukhi ne, 725 F. 3d at 6. The r ecor d suppor t s the Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s concl usi on t hat Pr of essor Leo - - i n hi s t est i mony at t he

evi dent i ary hear i ng conduct ed t o determi ne whether he coul d

t est i f y - - "was r ambl i ng and unf ocused, t al ki ng about one vi deo

and anot her vi deo, and he was al l over t he pl ace. " The Di st r i ct

Cour t was t hus wel l wi t hi n i t s di scr et i on i n r ej ect i ng a pr oposed

summary wi t ness who had demonst r ated hi s i nabi l i t y t o pr ovi de the


10/24

- 10 -

conci se r evi ew of t he evi dence t hat t he r ul e i s wr i t t en t o al l ow

t o ai d t he j ur y.

V.

Si l va next ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y. Si l va obj ect s t o t wo i nst r uct i ons on t he

gr ound t hat each was unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al , a chal l enge we r evi ew

f or abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Sasso, 695 F. 3d 25, 29

( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

Fi r st Si l va obj ects t o t he Di str i ct Cour t ' s i nstr uct i on

t hat " [ i ] f t he Def endant i ncor r ect l y bel i eved what does and does

not const i t ut e chi l d por nogr aphy, t hat does not r el i eve hi m of

r esponsi bi l i t y as l ong as t he Government has pr oven t he el ement s

t hat I ' ve out l i ned above. " Si l va ar gues t hat t he i nst r uct i on was

pr ej udi ci al because he cont ends t hat t he i nst r uct i on f unct i oned as

a "comment on t he t est i mony of t he def endant " and t hat " t he ef f ect

of t he cont est ed i nst r uct i on was t o i nappr opr i at el y f ocus on t he

def endant ' s bel i ef , when t he r eal i ssue was whether t he government

had pr oved t he def endant ' s knowl edge. "3

3 To t he ext ent Si l va ar gues t hat t he i nst r uct i on i mpr oper l y"di mi ni she[ d] t he Gover nment ' s bur den wi t h r espect t o pr ovi ngknowl edge, " he i s wr ong. I n order t o pr ove the "knowi ng" el ementof t he chi l d por nogr aphy st at ut es, " [ t ] he def endant must bel i evet hat t he pi ct ur e cont ai ns cer t ai n mat er i al , and t hat mat er i al i nf act ( and not mer el y i n hi s est i mat i on) must meet t he st at ut or ydef i ni t i on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 553 U. S. 285, 301 ( 2008) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Knox, 32 F. 3d 733, 754 ( 3d Ci r . 1992) ( " [ T] of ul f i l l t he knowl edge el ement of 2252, a def endant si mpl y mustbe aware of t he general natur e and character of t he mater i al and


11/24

- 11 -

We di sagr ee. "When an i nst r uct i on i s per t i nent t o t he

i ssues submi t t ed t o t he j ur y and const i t ut es an accur at e st at ement

of t he l aw, i t i s har d t o i magi ne any basi s f or a cl ai m of er r or . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Nasci ment o, 491 F. 3d 25, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . And

her e, t he Di st r i ct Cour t del i ver ed t he i nst r uct i on t o cl ar i f y what

t he government had t o pr ove about t he def endant ' s knowl edge i n the

f ace of Si l va' s asser t i ons i n t est i mony t hat t he mat er i al s wer e

not chi l d por nogr aphy. See i d. ( "We see no r eal i st i c possi bi l i t y

t hat [ t he i nst r uct i on] [ was] a sour ce of j ur or conf usi on.

Consequent l y, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on i n

char gi ng t he j ur y as i t di d. ") .

Si l va al so obj ects t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s i nst r ucti on

t hat t he j ur y shoul d consi der "whet her t he wi t ness had anythi ng t o

gai n or l ose f r om t he out come of t hi s case. I n ot her wor ds, was

t he wi t ness t ot al l y i mpar t i al , or di d t he wi t ness have some st ake

i n t he out come or some r eason t o f avor one si de or t he other . "

Si l va cont ends t hat t hi s i nst r uct i on must have been r ef er r i ng t o

hi m, even t hough i t was phr ased i n general t erms, because he was

t he onl y per son wi t h an i nt er est i n t he case. He t hus ar gues t he

i nst r uct i on f unct i oned as an i mper mi ss i bl e comment on hi s

cr edi bi l i t y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Dwyer , 843 F. 2d 60, 63 ( 1st

need not know t hat t he por t r ayal s ar e i l l egal . " ) . The chal l engedi nstr uct i on cor r ect l y ar t i cul at ed t hi s pr i nci pl e.


12/24

- 12 -

Ci r . 1988) ( "A char ge cont ai ni ng deni gr at i ng i mpl i cat i ons shoul d

not be gi ven unl ess i t serves some usef ul pur pose or need. " ) .

Si l va does not expl ai n, however , how t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s i nst r ucti on t o consi der wi t ness cr edi bi l i t y gener al l y - -

phr ased neut r al l y and wi t hout r ef er ence t o the def endant - - coul d

be t aken as a comment as t o hi s l ack of cr edi bi l i t y. I nst ead, as

t he government notes, l aw enf orcement agent s al so mi ght have an

i nt er est i n t he successf ul out come of a case they have

i nvest i gat ed. The i nst r uct i on t hus si mpl y served t o r emi nd t he

j ury of i t s r esponsi bi l i t y t o eval uat e and assess wi t ness

cr edi bi l i t y, see Uni t ed St at es v. Magui r e, 918 F. 2d 254, 269 ( 1st

Ci r . 1990) ( appr ovi ng i nst r uct i ons i n whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t

" r epeat edl y emphasi zed t hat t he f i nal r esol ut i on of t he i ssues

r est ed wi t h t he j ur y and t hat i t had t he sol e r esponsi bi l i t y f or

det er mi ni ng t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he wi t nesses and f i ndi ng t he

f act s") , and so t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on by

i ssui ng i t .

VI.

Si l va al so ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n

denyi ng hi s mot i on f or a j udgment of acqui t t al because t here was

i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t t he convi ct i ons. We r evi ew t hi s

pr eserved chal l enge de novo, vi ewi ng t he evi dence i n the l i ght

most f avorabl e t o t he government t o determi ne whet her t he evi dence

woul d al l ow a r at i onal f act f i nder t o concl ude t he def endant


13/24

- 13 -

commi t t ed t he char ged cr i me beyond a r easonabl e doubt . Uni t ed

St at es v. Al mei da, 748 F. 3d 41, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Si l va moved f or a j udgment of acqui t t al at t he concl usi on

of t he government ' s case, and r enewed hi s mot i on at t he concl usi on

of al l t he evi dence. He pr esent ed t wo ar gument s. As t o al l count s

he ar gued t hat t he government di d not pr ove t hat t he i mages were

chi l d por nogr aphy. As t o t he f i r st si x count s, f or r ecei pt of

chi l d por nogr aphy under 18 U. S. C. 2252( a) ( 2) , he ar gued t hat t he

gover nment di d not pr ove t hat he "knowi ngl y r ecei ved" chi l d

por nogr aphy. The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed t he mot i on. Si l va now

chal l enges t hat r ul i ng, and we consi der each aspect of hi s

chal l enge t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence i n t ur n.

A.

Si l va ar gues f i r st t hat whi l e t he quest i on "whet her a

gi ven depi ct i on i s l asci vi ous i s a quest i on of f act f or t he j ur y, "

Fr abi zi o, 459 F. 3d at 85, t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ovi de enough

evi dence t o pr ove beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he mater i al s

cover ed by t he seven count s depi ct ed t he " l asci vi ous exhi bi t i on of

geni t al s" as def i ned i n 18 U. S. C. 2256. Si l va ar gues t hat t he

"depi ct i ons t ake pl ace i n a var i et y of set t i ngs, " and t hat "most l y,

t he boys ar e pl ayi ng. " Though Si l va acknowl edges t hat t he

depi ct i ons ar e of boys who ar e "unquest i onabl y nude, " he suggest s

t hat " t he f i l ms mi ght be bet t er vi ewed as a paean t o nat ur al i sm

and nudi sm. " Si l va t hus ar gues t hat t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent


14/24

- 14 -

evi dence t o show t hat t he depi ct i ons met t he st andar d of

l asci vi ousness.

The probl em f or Si l va i s t hat , even t hough he cont ends

t hat t he f i l ms " mi ght be bet t er vi ewed as a paean t o nat ur al i sm

and nudi sm, " a rat i onal j ur or coul d r each a di f f er ent concl usi on

based on t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al . See Uni t ed St at es v.

Wi l der , 526 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( "The quest i on f or our

det er mi nat i on on appel l at e r evi ew . . . i s whet her a r easonabl e

j ury coul d have r eached t he concl usi on t hat t he i mages wer e of

sexual l y expl i ci t conduct . ") . Af t er al l , t he j ur y wat ched t he

f oot age of t he f i l ms, and t he j ur or s wer e ent i t l ed t o eval uat e and

det er mi ne whet her t he f i l ms i nvol ved t he " l asci vi ous exhi bi t i on of

geni t al s" based upon t he i mages t hey saw. See Fr abi zi o, 459 F. 3d

at 85 ( "[ W] het her t he i t em t o be j udged i s l ewd, l asci vi ous, or

obscene i s a det ermi nat i on t hat l ay persons can and shoul d make.

. . . I n maki ng t hi s det er mi nat i on, t he st andar d t o be appl i ed by

t he j ur y i s t he st at ut or y st andar d. The st at ut or y st andar d needs

no ador nment . " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) .

We have pr evi ousl y expl ai ned t hat l asci vi ous i s a

"commonsensi cal " t er m and t hat t her e i s no excl usi ve l i st of

f act or s - - such as t he so- cal l ed Dost f act or s - - t hat must be met

f or an i mage ( or a f i l m) t o be "l asci vi ous. " See Frabi zi o, 459

F. 3d at 85 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Dost , 636 F. Supp. 828, 832

( S. D. Cal . 1986) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ami r aul t , 173 F. 3d


15/24

- 15 -

28, 31- 32 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) . Her e, i t i s enough t o not e f r om our

r evi ew t hat - - as t he Di st r i ct Cour t al so concl uded - - t he evi dence

r eveal s t hat t he f i l ms showed young boys al most al ways depi ct ed

f ul l y nude, wi t h no evi dent st or yl i ne or di scer ni bl e ar t i st i c

expl anat i on f or t he f oot age. Mor eover , each f i l m showed boys

engaged i n some act i vi t y or act i vi t i es, whi ch - - t hough var yi ng

f rom f i l m t o f i l m - - di spl ayed t hei r geni t al i a i n a manner t hat ,

as t he Di st r i ct Cour t concl uded, a j ur y reasonabl y coul d deem t o

be i nt ended t o sexual l y ar ouse t he vi ewer . See Ami r aul t , 173 F. 3d

at 31- 32 ( f i ndi ng "whet her t he i mage i s i nt ended or desi gned t o

el i ci t a sexual r esponse i n t he vi ewer " a r el evant f act or "i n

eval uat i ng whet her t he di spl ay i n quest i on i s l asci vi ous" ( ci t i ng

Dost , 636 F. Supp. at 832) ) .

I t i s t r ue t hat t he f i l ms combi ned i ncl uded

appr oxi matel y t went y t hr ee hour s of f oot age, wi t h cer t ai n i mages

i n whi ch t he boys' cl ot hi ng or t he act i vi t y tempor ar i l y obscur ed

t he vi ew of t he boys' geni t al i a. But each of t he f i l ms al so

i ncl uded scenes, f or exampl e, of t he boys wr est l i ng or shower i ng

i n posi t i ons t hat gave t he camer a a cl ear shot of t hei r geni t al i a,

or l oungi ng, st andi ng, or si t t i ng i n post ur es t hat pr omi nent l y

di spl ayed t hei r geni t al i a i n t he camer a shot . Consi der i ng t he

f i l ms as whol e under count seven, and the i mages depi ct ed i n each

of t he f i l ms l i st ed i n t he ot her count s, t he j ur y' s det er mi nat i on

t hat t he f i l ms depi cted "sexual l y expl i ci t conduct , " i n t he f or m


16/24

- 16 -

of "l asci vi ous exhi bi t i on of geni t al s" of chi l dr en, was t hus a

r at i onal concl usi on dr awn f r omt he evi dence. See Wi l der , 526 F. 3d

at 12.

B.

Si l va' s second ar gument i s t hat t he gover nment di d not

pr ove t hat he knowi ngl y r ecei ved chi l d por nogr aphy as r equi r ed by

count s one t hr ough si x. See 18 U. S. C. 2252( a) ( 2) ( pr escr i bi ng

puni shment f or any per son who "knowi ngl y r ecei ves" depi ct i ons of

mi nor s engaged i n sexual l y expl i ci t conduct ) . Unl i ke count seven,

each of t hese count s i dent i f i ed a speci f i c f i l m, or set of f i l ms,

t hat Si l va had r ecei ved. For t hi s char ge, t he gover nment had t o

pr ove t he mat er i al t hat Si l va r ecei ved as descr i bed i n each count

i n f act met t he st at ut or y def i ni t i on f or chi l d por nogr aphy and

t hat Si l va knew " t he f act s t hat ma[ d] e hi s conduct f i t t he

def i ni t i on of t he of f ense" at t he t i me of r ecei pt . El oni s v.

Uni t ed St at es, 135 S. Ct . 2001, 2009 ( 2015) ( quot i ng St apl es v.

Uni t ed St at es, 511 U. S. 600, 608, n. 3 ( 1994) ) ; see al so X- Ci t ement

Vi deo, I nc. , 513 U. S. at 78 ( "[ T] he t er m ' knowi ngl y' i n 2252

ext ends bot h t o the sexual l y expl i ci t nat ur e of t he mat er i al and

t o t he age of t he per f or mer s. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Gendr on, 18 F. 3d

955, 959 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) .

The gover nment di d not need t o show, however , t hat t he

def endant knew t he mat er i al was i n f act i l l egal at t he t i me of

r ecei pt . See Uni t ed St at es v. Knox, 32 F. 3d 733, 754 ( 3d Ci r .


17/24

- 17 -

1994) ( " [ T] o f ul f i l l t he knowl edge el ement of 2252, a def endant

si mpl y must be aware of t he general natur e and charact er of t he

mat er i al and need not know t hat t he por t r ayal s ar e i l l egal . " ) .

I nst ead "a def endant gener al l y must ' know t he f act s t hat make hi s

conduct f i t t he def i ni t i on of t he of f ense, ' even i f he does not

know t hat t hose f act s gi ve r i se t o a cr i me. " El oni s, 135 S. Ct .

at 2009 ( quot i ng St apl es, 511 U. S. at 608 & n. 3) ; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 553 U. S. 285, 301 ( 2008) ( "The def endant must

bel i eve that t he pi ct ur e cont ai ns cer t ai n mat er i al , and t hat

mat er i al i n f act ( and not mer el y i n hi s est i mat i on) must meet t he

st at ut or y def i ni t i on. ") ; Haml i ng, 418 U. S. at 123 ( "To r equi r e

pr oof of a def endant ' s knowl edge of t he l egal st at us of t he

mat er i al s woul d permi t t he def endant t o avoi d pr osecut i on by si mpl y

cl ai mi ng t hat he had not br ushed up on t he l aw. " ) .

I n ar gui ng t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ovi de

suf f i ci ent evi dence f r omwhi ch a j ur y rat i onal l y coul d f i nd beyond

a r easonabl e doubt t hat he knowi ngl y r ecei ved unl awf ul mat er i al s,

Si l va cont ends t hat , even i f some of t he mat er i al s he r ecei ved

wer e i l l egal chi l d por nogr aphy, t he Azov websi t e al so sol d

mat er i al s t hat di d not cont ai n chi l d por nogr aphy. He t hus ar gues

t hat t he government f ai l ed t o show t hat when he pl aced hi s or ders

on t he Azov websi t e - - whi ch he cont ends cont ai ned, at most , both

l egal and i l l egal mat er i al s - - he knew t hat he was goi ng t o r ecei ve

mat er i al s t hat f el l i nt o t he l at t er cat egor y.


18/24

- 18 -

But t he government pr esent ed evi dence about what Si l va

knew about t he speci f i c mat er i al s he or der ed at t he t i me t hat he

pl aced t hose or der s. And i n consequence of t hat evi dence, t he

j ury coul d r at i onal l y concl ude t hat Si l va knew - - wi t h r espect t o

t he speci f i c f i l ms i dent i f i ed i n each of t hese si x count s - - t hat

he was or der i ng and r ecei vi ng f i l ms t hat di d show nude chi l dr en

engaged i n sexual l y expl i ci t conduct .

We st ar t wi t h t he evi dence t he gover nment pr ovi ded about

what Si l va woul d have encount er ed on t he Azov websi t e when he

pl aced hi s or der s. Ther e was t est i mony t hat i ndi cat ed a cust omer

per usi ng t he Azov Fi l ms' websi t e woul d encount er a br i ef

descr i pt i on of t he mat er i al f or sal e. The j ur or s wer e t hen

pr esent ed wi t h t he websi t e pages f or t he f i l ms l i st ed i n t he

i ndi ct ment .

I n ot her wor ds, t he j ur y saw t he act ual pages f r omwhi ch

Si l va woul d have pl aced hi s or der f or each of t he f i l ms l i st ed i n

t he i ndi ct ment ' s si x r ecei pt count s. These pages i ncl uded phot os

of t he boys who wer e f eat ur ed i n each par t i cul ar f i l m, cl ot hed or

i n swi msui t s. The j ur y t hus coul d concl ude - - f r om vi ewi ng t he

descr i pt i ons and phot os - - t hat Si l va woul d know t he boys wer e

under age. Fur t her , t he websi t e pr ovi ded edi t or i al cont ent about

each f i l m. Thi s cont ent cl ear l y communi cat ed t o i t s websi t e


19/24

- 19 -

audi ence t hat each of t he f i l ms Si l va or der ed woul d f eat ur e the

boys nude. 4

I n addi t i on, t he websi t e pages i ncl uded descr i pt i ons

t hat conveyed t hat t hese speci f i c f i l ms woul d show t he boys

engagi ng i n var i ous t ypes of act i vi t i es but wi t hout of f er i ng any

sembl ance of a pl ot or st or yl i ne. And t he descr i pt i ons f or each

of t he f i l ms went on t o descr i be t he act i vi t i es i n whi ch t he boys

woul d be engagi ng usi ng l anguage t hat t he j ur y cl ear l y coul d have

per cei ved as i ndi cat i ng t he pr esence of sexual l y expl i ci t cont ent . 5

4 For t he f i l m i n count one, FKK Wat er l ogged, t he descr i pt i onl i st ed t he act i vi t i es on "t oday' s nudi st menu. " The f i l m i n countt wo, Vl adi k Remembered Vol . 1, was descr i bed t o "compi l e a ser i esof l engt hy Vl adi k nudi st scenes" i n " t hi s wonder f ul homage to theboy who hel ped est abl i sh Azov Fi l ms. " The f i l mi n t he t hi r d count ,Vl adi k Remember ed Vol . 2, i s descr i bed as a "cont i nued cel ebr at i oni n honor of Vl adi k' s 18t h bi r t hday and of f i ci al i ndoct r i nat i oni nt o adul t hood, " - - showi ng " f oot age" of Vl adi ck f r om when he was"between 14 and 16" - - i n what was descr i bed as a "compi l at i on of

t he best of t he best Vl adi k nat ur i st scenes" f r om "Cr i mea' s mostf amous nat ur i st . " For t he f i l m i n count f our , Paul & Cal i n' s HomeVi deo, t he websi t e sai d t hat " t he per sonal i t i es of our on camer anudi st s, Cal i n and Paul , shi ne t hr ough" and t he boys "get i nt osome nudi st f un. " The f i l m i n count f i ve, Cut t i ng Room Fl oor :Vl avi u, car r i es a descr i pt i on of "Vl avi u and hi s buddi es goi ngcommando i n a ver y uni que way" wi t h "nudi st f ood f i ght i ng. " Thef i l m i n count si x, Raw Rewi nd Vol . 2, accor di ng t o t he websi t e,consi st ed of "unedi t ed nat ur i st r aw f oot age. "

5 The f i l mi n count one descr i bed "a col d shower " and "gener alhor si ng ar ound . . . [ whi ch] gi ves way t o some r el axi ng physi calt her apy i n t he f or m of a deep massage. " The f i l m i n count t wo wasa "compi l at i on of scenes" of one f eat ur ed boy and hi s "nat ur i stbuddi es" i n "sauna and beach ant i cs. " The f i l m i n count t hr eedescr i bed t hat t he boys were f eat ur ed "as t hey wr eak havoc i n someof Cr i mea' s most excl usi ve saunas. " The f i l m i n count f our wasdescr i bed as i ncl udi ng "pr obabl y one of t he best wr est l i ng mat ches( i f not t he best ) we' ve ever f i l med i n t he hi st or y of t he BoyFi ght s l i ne of nudi st DVDs. " The f i l m i n count f i ve was pr omot ed


20/24

- 20 -

So whi l e Si l va ar gues t hat "[ t ] he descr i pt i ons of t he

DVDs . . . di d not pr ovi de not i ce t hat t hey cont ai n chi l d

por nogr aphy, " t he descr i pt i ons cl ear l y conveyed t hat t he f i l ms

of f er ed seemi ngl y no sembl ance of a st or y, wi t h l i t t l e di al ogue or

wi t h f or ei gn l anguage di al ogue l ef t unt r ansl at ed f or vi ewer s, and

f eat ur ed nude boys engagi ng i n act i vi t i es t he j ur y coul d r easonabl y

concl ude he woul d have known t o be sexual l y expl i ci t . Thus, t he

websi t e pages f or t he f i l ms t hat Si l va or der ed har dl y r equi r e - -

or even per mi t - - t he beni gn char act er i zat i on he cont ends must be

gi ven t o them.

Rel evant , t oo, i s t he f act t hat t he websi t e' s f i l m

descri pt i ons al so i dent i f y par t i cul ar boys as t he st ar s of t he

pr oduct i ons and di r ect t hei r " f ans" t o sear ch among t hei r ot her

f i l ms. 6 I n ot her wor ds, t he f i l ms di d not adver t i se t hemsel ves as

as "di scs of ooey- gooey sl i pper y goodness. " Some of Azov' s f i l mt i t l es, l i ke Raw Rewi nd Vol . 2 named i n count si x, al so r epl i cat edt he suggest i ve t one. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Downsbr ough, No.3: 13- CR- 61, 2013 WL 5781570, at *13 ( E. D. Tenn. Oct . 24, 2013)( "The names of some of t he DVDs ordered by t he Def endant f r omt hi ssame company [ Azov] . . . [ i ncl udi ng] Raw Rewi nd Vol umes 13 aresexual l y suggest i ve. ") .

6 Speci f i cal l y, t he webs i t e' s descr i pt i on f or t he f i l m i ncount one sai d t hat "[ i ] f you' r e a f an of Paul , t hi s i s a mustget " and " [ s] ame wi t h Cal i n f ans. " The Azov websi t e descr i bedt hat t he f i l m i n count t wo was cr eat ed i n "cel ebr at i on" of "AzovFi l ms' super st ar , Vl adi k. " The descr i pt i on f or t he f i l m i n countt hr ee addr essed "Vl adi k f ans" and descr i bed t hat "90% of t hevi si t or s t o Azov Fi l ms ar e Vl adi k f ans, and about hal f of t hosear e di e- har d Vl adi k f ans. " The descri pt i on i n t he f i l m f r omcountf our not ed about one of a t hr ee- di sc set t hat "t hi s di sc i s notsubt i t l ed but wi l l cer t ai nl y be enj oyed, especi al l y f or f ans of


21/24

- 21 -

"a paean t o nat ur al i sm and nudi sm" as Si l va suggest ed, but r at her ,

as an exhi bi t i on of par t i cul ar nude young boys.

I ndeed, a Uni t ed St at es post al i nspect or t est i f i ed t hat

" [ t ] hese vi deos have, and I hat e t o use the wor d but I can' t t hi nk

of a bet t er one, t hei r own st ar s and t hei r own f ol l owi ng" such

t hat "t he vi deos of par t i cul ar boys [ wer e] par t i cul ar l y sought by

peopl e who pr ef er t hat par t i cul ar boy. " And, by mar ket i ng t he

f i l ms as showcasi ng par t i cul ar boys, t he f i l m descr i pt i ons

i ndi cat ed t hat , as t o each f i l m Si l va or der ed, t he exhi bi t i on of

t hose under age boys, who were al so descr i bed as bei ng nude and

act i ve i n suggest i ve set t i ngs, was t he poi nt of t he pr oduct i on.

The j ury t hus coul d have f ound t hat t hi s l anguage about " f ans" and

t he sat i sf act i on t hey woul d der i ve f r om par t i cul ar f i l ms - - gi ven

t he r est of t he descr i pt i ons - - woul d have al er t ed Si l va, as a

pr ospect i ve pur chaser , t o t he f act t hat t hese f i l ms wer e " i nt ended

or desi gned t o el i ci t a sexual r esponse i n t he vi ewer . " Ami r aul t ,

173 F. 3d at 31 ( ci t i ng Dost , 636 F. Supp. at 832) .

Fi nal l y, and f ur t her suppor t i ng t he gover nment ' s case,

t he j ur y r ecei ved evi dence of Si l va' s comment s of f er i ng hi s own

eval uat i on of t he Azov websi t e. Though made af t er t he

i nvest i gat i on was underway and he had al r eady r ecei ved the

Paul . " The f i l m f r om count f i ve was descr i bed as "a must get f ort he t r ue Vl avi u f an. " The descri pt i on f or t he f i l m i n count si xt ol d r eader s t hat " [ y] ou' l l r ecogni ze a young I gor , and Sasha. "


22/24

- 22 -

mat er i al s, t hese comment s - - when r ead i n l i ght of t he evi dence

concerni ng t he i nf ormat i on conveyed by the websi t e pages f or t he

f i l ms he or der ed - - pr ovi de a basi s f r om whi ch a j ur y coul d

r easonabl y i nf er t hat Si l va f ound t he sexual l y expl i ci t nat ur e of

t he avai l abl e mat er i al s evi dent f r om t he f ace of t he websi t e. I n

ot her wor ds, t hough Si l va i nsi st s t hat a pur chaser mi ght have

bel i eved t he mat er i al s t o be beni gn at t he t i me of or der i ng, t he

comment s t he j ur y hear d about hi s own character i zat i on of t he

websi t e under cut t he pl ausi bi l i t y of such an assessment .

Speci f i cal l y, t he j ur y saw emai l s t hat Si l va sent , soon

af t er t he websi t e was shut down by Canadi an aut hor i t i es, t o a

pr of essi onal acquai nt ance i n t he Rhode I sl and st at e pol i ce. These

emai l s set f or t h Si l va' s own concer ns wi t h t he Azov websi t e. Si l va

wr ot e that t he websi t e "cl ai m[ s] t o be a ' Eur opean Nat ur i st '

websi t e" but not ed t hat " t he onl y nat ur i st f i l ms t hat t hey have

ar e of nude boys. " He st at ed t hat " [ t ] hey sel l mai nst r eam f i l ms

as wel l " but added t hat he suspect ed " t hat t hey do t hi s t o pr ovi de

an ' ai r ' of l egi t i macy. " He wr ot e t hat he suspect ed t hat " t he

boys f eat ur ed i n t hei r ' Nat ur i st ' f i l ms ar e bei ng gr oomed t o

per f or m i n t he por nogr aphi c adul t f i l ms when t hey come of age. "

Si l va al so expl ai ned t hat he f eared Azov was " doi ng mor e wi t h t hese

boys t han t hey are pr esent i ng" and t hat he had "a r eal l y bad

f eel i ng about what may be happeni ng t o t hose boys. " And,

under scor i ng t he basi s f or i nf er r i ng t hat Si l va was hi msel f


23/24

- 23 -

concer ned about t he websi t e, Si l va i mpl i ci t l y deni ed i n hi s emai l

t o l aw enf orcement t hat he had pl aced any or ders wi t h Azov, and he

al so wr ot e t hat he di d "not i nt end t o f i nd out " about t he websi t e s

"speci al of f ers . "

Mor eover , dur i ng a subsequent sear ch of hi s house,

accor di ng t o the test i mony of one l aw enf orcement agent pr esent at

t he sear ch, Si l va al so "st at ed t hat he was concer ned about a l ot

of t hi ngs surr oundi ng Azov Fi l ms. One of hi s concer ns was t hat he

f el t t hat t he chi l dr en may be bei ng gr oomed f or somet hi ng l at er on

i n a sexual nat ur e wi t hi n t hi s connot at i on. He st at ed t hat he

knew t he chi l dr en were bei ng expl oi t ed. " And when t ol d t hat t he

Azov websi t e oper at or s wer e l i kel y i n pr i son, t he agent t est i f i ed,

Si l va r esponded, "Good, t hey shoul d be. "

These comments t hus provi de a basi s f r omwhi ch a r at i onal

j ury coul d concl ude t hat Si l va under st ood t he Azov websi t e t o be

sel l i ng sexual l y expl i ci t mat er i al s at t he t i me he pl aced hi s

or der s, r at her t han that he woul d have been sur pr i sed by t he

cont ent of t he f i l ms t hat he event ual l y possessed. And t hough

Si l va at t r i al and dur i ng t he i nvest i gat i on of f er ed an i nnocent

expl anat i on f or hi s pur chases - - namel y, t hat he had pur chased t he

f i l ms because he was worki ng on a PowerPoi nt pr esent at i on r el ated

t o hi s wor k wi t h sex of f ender s at t he pr obat i on of f i ce - - t he j ur y

was ent i t l ed to di sbel i eve what r easonabl y mi ght have seemed l i ke


24/24

2

a "dubi ous cl ai m[ ] of i nnocence. " Uni t ed St at es v. Hi l l , 750 F. 3d

982, 988 ( 8t h Ci r . 2014) .

Gi ven t he cumul at i ve f or ce of t hese r easons, a r at i onal

j ury coul d have concl uded beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat Si l va had

knowl edge that t he cont ent s of t he mater i al s he ordered and

r ecei ved wer e of a ki nd t hat woul d br i ng such mat er i al s wi t hi n t he

Act ' s cover age, whet her or not Si l va knew at t hat t i me t hat such

cont ent s render ed t he f i l ms cont r aband as a l egal mat t er . The

Di st r i ct Cour t t her ef or e di d not er r i n denyi ng Si l va' s mot i on f or

a j udgment of acqui t t al .

VII.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he j udgment of t he Di st r i ct

Cour t i s af f i r med.

Documents

United States v. Silva, 1st Cir. (2015)