ILNews

Judges uphold child pornography sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found no procedural or substantive errors in a sentence following a man's guilty plea to a child pornography charge.

In United States of America v. Brad Coopman, No. 09-2134, Brad Coopman challenged his sentence of 151 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. Indiana State Police learned Coopman was using his computer to share three child pornography videos and later discovered more saved on his computer. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.

Coopman claimed the District Court improperly placed presumptive weight on the sentencing guidelines, didn't consider non-frivolous arguments, and misapplied 18 U.S.C. Section 3553. He also argued his sentence was unreasonable.

Coopman filed two sentencing memorandums: One urged the court to give the guidelines little weight in sentencing him; the other addressed Section 3553 sentencing factors. He wanted the District Court to adopt the mandatory 60-month imprisonment as required by 18 U.S.C. Section 2252(a)(2).

There were no objections to the pre-sentence investigation report, and the District Court adopted the factual statements in it as its findings of fact. The court also heard witnesses, including a Lafayette police officer who examined Coopman's computer and testified on Coopman's pornography searches conducted on a Purdue University campus computer. Coopman presented Dr. William Hillman, an expert in sexually violent offenders, who testified it was unlikely Coopman would exhibit predatory behavior and that his addiction could be abated.

On appeal, Coopman argued the District Court improperly presumed the sentencing guidelines were reasonable, but there's more than enough evidence to show the court considered the guidelines only in their advisory capacity, wrote Judge Michael Kanne.

Coopman also claimed the District Court improperly failed to consider evidence in the mitigation of his sentence; but the court did address his argument, it just reached a different conclusion than Coopman wanted, the judge noted.

The District Court considered Hillman's testimony but had serious concerns about the doctor's specific experience, methods, and analysis because the doctor wasn't an expert in child pornography. In addition, the District Court properly considered Coopman's arguments in light of Section 3553(a).

The Circuit judges also found Coopman's argument that his sentence was inappropriate to be without merit because the District Court acted reasonably in imposing his sentence.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT