ILNews

Man’s second federal child-porn conviction sticks, 7th Circuit rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man whose first federal child pornography conviction was reversed on appeal struck out in his second appearance before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals after he was reconvicted of the same 16 counts.

Federal investigators in 2007 discovered an Internet bulletin board called “the Cache” that provided images and videos of child pornography to members around the world. The government alleged Roger Loughry was a site administrator whose online identity was “Mayor roger.” A federal jury convicted him of 12 charges of advertising child pornography, two counts of distribution of child porn and one count each of conspiracy to advertise and conspiracy to distribute the material.

At the first appeal, the 7th Circuit reversed his conviction because evidence was presented that depicted “hardcore” child porn seized from a search of Loughry’s home that was unlike that for which he was being prosecuted. The 7th Circuit ruled admission of such evidence was an abuse of discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

On retrial, federal prosecutors withheld that evidence and Loughry nonetheless was convicted on all 16 of the same counts before Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. In his appeal, Loughry argued he was unfairly prejudiced when evidence seized from his home was supplied to jurors during deliberations.

“While there may be some special circumstances in which a district court would abuse its discretion by failing to exclude properly admitted evidence from the jury room on this basis, Loughry’s case does not fit the bill,” Circuit Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote for the panel in USA v. Roger Loughry, 13-1385.

“The challenged exhibit was not unfairly prejudicial because the images and videos from Loughry’s personal collection were highly probative of his identity as the (I)nternet user ‘Mayor roger’ who advertised and distributed child pornography on a site called ‘the Cache.’ The similarities between Loughry’s own child pornography and that found on the Cache made Loughry’s personal collection highly probative and justified the court’s decision to allow jurors to inspect it during deliberations,” the panel ruled.

Loughry, 60, is serving his sentence in the Petersburg (Va.) Medium Security Federal Correctional Institution and is not eligible for release for 31 years.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT