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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT