Jurisdictional win in Tenth Circuit

Howard Pincus, a federal public defender, won in U.S. v. Schaefer, No 06-3080 (10th Cir. Sept. 5, 2007), reversing a federal conviction for receipt and possession of images involving the sexual exploitation of minors. The Tenth Circuit reversed citing the failure of the state to provide evidence to support the federal jurisdictional requirement that images he received or possessed traveled across state lines:

Ultimately, the decision to uphold or overturn Mr. Schaefer’s convictions turns on whether an Internet transmission, standing alone, satisfies the interstate commerce requirement of the statute.7 Mr. Schaefer asserts that § 2252(a)’s jurisdictional provisions requires movement across state lines, and it is not enough to assume that an Internet communication necessarily traveled across state lines in interstate commerce. We agree.

We hold that the government did not present sufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional nexus of the § 2252(a) provisions at issue. They require a movement between states. The government did not present evidence of such movement; instead, the government only showed that Mr. Schaefer used the Internet. We recognize in many, if not most, situations the use of the Internet will involve the movement of communications or materials between states. But this fact does not suspend the need for evidence of this interstate movement. The government offered insufficient proof of interstate movement in this case.

So the Tenth Circuit ordered an acquittal. A good example of difficulties of proof that can result in the age of the internet.

Here is the Decision of the Day blog coverage of the case.