ILNews

No Brady violation in sex-sting case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defendant failed to show there was a Brady violation in his trial for enticing who he thought was an underage girl he met on the internet, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. Even though the government didn't know two other "underage girls" he chatted with were really police officers involved in the same sting at the time he was indicted, that information isn't enough to grant a new trial under the plain error standard.

In United States of America v. James Daniel, No. 08-2672, James Daniel was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 2442(b), which forbids knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing an individual under 18 to engage in criminal sexual activity. Daniel communicated with Amanda_13, whom he believed was only 13, and convinced "her" to meet him at a park to have sex.

At trial, evidence was admitted of online conversations Daniel had with two other supposed underage girls - daisy13_Indiana and blonddt. The government didn't know until the sentencing phase that daisy13_Indiana was a police officer. It wasn't until the Circuit Court reviewed the case did the government learn blonddt was also a police officer. The 7th Circuit Court had dealt with another defendant caught in the same sting operation who communicated with blonddt.

Daniel claimed the government's failure to disclose the identity of these two screen names during his trial violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and he should be granted a new trial.

But the Circuit Court found this information wasn't material to his trial. The identity of these screen names doesn't impeach Secret Service agent James Kimes' testimony regarding his examination of Daniel's computer, wrote Judge Diane Wood.

"All that Daniel could have shown, had the government informed him that daisy13_Indiana and blonddt were names operated by police officers, was that Kimes did not know much about the undercover operation," she wrote. "But Kimes never said that he did know about it, and so this information would not have impeached his testimony."

Daniel also failed to prove his entrapment argument because the chats with these two screen names happened after he already initiated the chats with Amanda_13, who turned out to be a police officer.

In addition, the identity of these two screen names doesn't affect the admissibility of the conversations under Rule 404(b) or their relevance, the judge wrote. They were admitted to show Daniel's state of mind and what mattered was he believed he was chatting about sex with minor girls. There's also no reasonable probability that a jury would have acquitted him because the evidence overwhelmingly showed he used the Internet to persuade Amanda_13 to meet him to have sex.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT