United States v. Frank Russell McCoy , 602 F. App'x 501 ( 2015 )

Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 1 of 12
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
____________________________
No. 13-14350
____________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-00018-WLS-TQL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANK RUSSELL MCCOY,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_____________________________
(March 12, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and MOODY,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
__________
*Honorable James S. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 2 of 12
Following a bench trial, Frank Russell McCoy appeals his conviction of one
count of Transportation of Obscene Matters in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462.
After thoroughly reviewing the record and considering the parties’ briefs, and with
the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.
I.
McCoy maintained a website at young-stuff.com from his home in
Minnesota. On this website, McCoy posted more than 200 stories that he authored
or edited and that described in graphic and explicit detail the sexual abuse, rape,
and torture of young children. McCoy’s website provided a link for visitors to
access the stories. McCoy’s young-stuff.com website came to the attention of
federal law enforcement officers in 2004, when agents were conducting a separate
investigation and found 18 stories downloaded from the website on a suspect’s
computer in Georgia. On March 22, 2005, Special Agent Cory Brant visited the
young-stuff.com website and downloaded more than 200 accessible stories. Over
the course of Brant’s investigation, McCoy provided Brant with links to three
websites that contained McCoy’s stories.
McCoy’s stories included, but were not limited to: a father having vaginal
intercourse and ejaculating inside the cervix of his six-year-old daughter; a father
digitally penetrating his seven-year-old daughter; a father having oral sex with,
2
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 3 of 12
ejaculating into the mouth of, digitally and vaginally penetrating, and performing
oral sex on his six-year-old daughter; a father having vaginal intercourse with his
daughter and torturing and murdering her; and an adult uncle masturbating and
ejaculating, fondling, and having vaginal intercourse with his four-year-old niece
while the girl’s mother and father masturbated and video-taped this sexual abuse.
On June 13, 2007, a one-count indictment was returned by the grand jury in
the Albany Division of the Middle District of Georgia charging McCoy with a
single violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462.
McCoy waived his right to a jury trial and was therefore tried before the
district court. The parties stipulated to facts establishing each element of the
charged offense except the obscenity element. Specifically, McCoy stipulated to
the first two elements of section 1462, (1) that he knowingly used or caused to be
used an interactive computer service to transport certain materials in interstate or
foreign commerce, and (2) that he knew, at the time, the content of the materials
were sexual in nature. McCoy challenged only the third element of his crime that
required the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the materials were
“obscene.”
The government introduced into evidence all of McCoy’s stories retrieved
from his websites, totaling approximately 276 stories. The government focused its
3
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 4 of 12
trial presentation on the 18 stories that prompted Brant’s investigation. The
government requested that the district court render a special verdict with respect to
each of the 18 stories.
McCoy objected to the government’s proposed approach; he argued that the
focus on only 18 of his stories and request for a special verdict constructively
amended the indictment. McCoy contended that all of the more than 200 stories
Brant downloaded were the subject of the single-count indictment. He also argued
that, under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the district court had to
consider all of the stories collectively to determine whether, taken as a whole, they
qualified as obscene.
During the bench trial, McCoy relied on expert testimony from Gary
Richardson, Ph.D., a professor and chair of the English department at Mercer
University, who specialized in nineteenth-century drama, in support of his defense
that the stories were not obscene. Richardson opined that the stories had serious
literary value under a narrow definition of literary value.
Following a two-day bench trial, McCoy was convicted of using an
interactive computer service for the transportation of obscene material in interstate
and foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462. The district court
expressed its verdict in two orders, a “Bench Opinion,” and an order denying
4
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 5 of 12
McCoy’s motion for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. In
concluding that the stories were “obscene,” the district court focused specifically
on the 18 stories. The district court rejected McCoy’s argument that the
government’s request for a special verdict constructively amended the indictment
because the request did “not require any deviation from the factual allegations
within the indictment,” and “the number of obscene matters transported [was] not
an element of the crime” under section 1462.
The district court denied the government’s request for a special verdict on
each of the 18 stories, concluding that “a special verdict is neither appropriate nor
necessary.” The district court concluded that the 18 stories were a representative
sample of McCoy’s stories as a whole.
The district court noted that Richardson’s analysis of the stories did not
“redeem [McCoy’s] work.” Specifically, despite Richardson’s opinion, the district
court found “no literary value within the murk of rape, incest, abuse, molestation,
and vivid descriptions of the violations of children as composed within [McCoy’s]
work.” The district court concluded that the record “establishe[d] a clear purpose
to appeal to prurient interest, especially with prepubescent female children.”
McCoy’s appeal presents the following issues: whether the district court
failed to judge McCoy’s work as a whole; whether the district court correctly
5
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 6 of 12
applied Miller; and whether the district court constructively amended the
indictment.
II.
Generally, a conviction must be upheld if “any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” U.S.
v. Mintmire, 507 F.3d 1273, 1289 (11th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original). We
view “the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, with all
reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor.’”
U.S. v. Harris, 20 F.3d 445, 452 (11th Cir. 1994). In obscenity prosecutions,
however, we conduct “an independent review of the material in question and an
independent evaluation of the material in light of the Miller criteria,” to ensure
that the judgment does not intrude on First Amendment rights. U.S. v. Bagnell,
679 F.2d 826, 835 (11th Cir. 1982).
III.
The meaning of “obscene” in 18 U.S.C. § 1462 derives from First
Amendment law. See U.S. v. Thevis, 484 F.2d 1149, 1155 (5th Cir. 1973).1
Generally, the First Amendment prohibits the punishment of speech based on its
1
This Court has adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions issued prior to
October 1, 1981. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en
banc).
6
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 7 of 12
content. The Supreme Court established in Miller v. California that obscenity is
not protected by the First Amendment. 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Miller limits the
category of obscenity to material that meets all of three requirements: 1) “the
average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the
work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,” 2) the average person,
applying contemporary community standards, would find that “the work depicts or
describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by ...
law,” and 3) “the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political,
or scientific value.” Id. at 24, 30 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
McCoy first argues that the district court clearly erred when it failed to
judge his work as a whole; rather, the district court focused on the 18 stories that
the government presented.
An accurate determination of what constitutes the “work as a whole” is
critical to the correct application of the Miller standard. See Ginzburg v. U.S., 383
U.S. 463, 466 n. 5 (1966); Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe, 610 F.2d 1353, 1367-
74 (5th Cir. 1980). A work is not necessarily obscene if one portion could be
deemed to lack societal value when considered separately and in isolation. See
Penthouse, 610 F.2d at 1372 (issue of Playboy magazine not obscene even though
it “contains items which, standing alone, would be found obscene”).
7
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 8 of 12
The record reflects that, although the district court focused on 18 specific
stories, all of the stories were introduced into evidence. And our review of the 276
stories demonstrates that they focus on one or two standard plots and describe in
graphic and explicit detail the sexual abuse, rape, murder, and torture of young
children. McCoy himself described the stories as mostly involving incest,
pedophilia, and pregnancy. In light of these common factors, we conclude that the
district court did not err when it focused on the 18 stories as a representative
sample of all of McCoy’s stories collectively. We are unpersuaded by McCoy’s
arguments to the contrary.
McCoy next asserts a number of arguments in support of his contention that
the district court did not correctly apply the third prong of the Miller standard.
McCoy contends that the district court erred when it disregarded Richardson’s
expert testimony. McCoy also argues that the government should have presented
evidence to counter Richardson’s expert testimony. We reject these arguments
because McCoy’s stories, introduced into evidence, constituted the “best
evidence” of whether the stories lacked serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 56-57 (1973).
In Paris Adult Theatre I, the Supreme Court held that a district court did not err
when it did not “require ‘expert’ affirmative evidence” that the materials in an
8
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 9 of 12
obscenity prosecution were obscene “when the materials themselves [were]
actually placed in evidence.” Id. at 56. We noted in Luke Records, Inc. v.
Navarro, 960 F.2d 134, 137 (11th Cir. 1992), that “the law does not require expert
testimony in an obscenity case.”
The district court did not err when it disregarded Richardson’s expert
opinion because, as the finder of fact, the district court could come to a different
conclusion about the stories’ value based on the district court’s review of the
stories themselves. Penthouse instructs that a work that reflects some literary
value is not saved if the work is predominantly obscene. See 610 F.2d at 1372
(“The issue with respect to ‘Penthouse’ and ‘Oui’ is close but the numerous
pictorials and obscene letters were not saved by the articles possessing some
literary merit.”).
Also, the government was not required to introduce expert testimony
establishing that the stories were obscene because the stories themselves were
placed in evidence. See Thevis, 484 F.2d at 1153 (“expert testimony on the part of
the prosecution is not necessary in cases where the materials themselves are
available for inspection by the finder of fact.”). Simply put, expert testimony on
the value of McCoy’s stories was unnecessary for the finder of fact to ascertain
whether the stories, taken as a whole, lacked serious artistic, scientific, literary, or
9
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 10 of 12
political value.
McCoy also argues that the district court improperly considered his purpose
in creating and disseminating the stories. We disagree because the district court’s
opinion makes clear that it did not weigh McCoy’s purpose in creating the stories
above and beyond the actual content of the stories. The assessment of McCoy’s
purpose was not a dispositive factor in the district court’s analysis. Indeed, with
respect to the third prong of the Miller standard, the district court concluded that
“[McCoy’s] stories present as ordinary and ‘consensual,’ patently offensive
accounts of various explicit sexual acts, abuse, violence and rape of prepubescent
female children as young as four years of age to appeal to the prurient interest of
the reader.”
Moreover, based on our independent review of McCoy’s stories, we
conclude that they lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The
stories graphically describe sexual acts, incestuous relationships, molestation,
masturbation, sexual abuse, rape, intercourse, violent acts, and arguably the torture
and/or murder of very young children. The stories contain tenuous plots at best.
Simply put, the stories are precisely the type of “‘hard core’ pornography” that the
Supreme Court has made clear is unprotected under the First Amendment. See
Miller, 413 U.S. at 29.
10
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 11 of 12
Finally, McCoy argues that the district court’s focus on 18 stories as a
representative sample of all of his stories constructively amended the indictment.
Under the Fifth Amendment, “a defendant can only be convicted for a crime
charged in the indictment.” U.S. v. Keller, 916 F.2d 628, 633 (11th Cir. 1990).
“When considering an argument that an indictment was constructively amended,
we are required to determine whether the prosecutor’s actions or the court’s
instructions, viewed in context, resulted in the expansion of an indictment either
literally or in effect.” U.S. v. Behety, 32 F.3d 503, 508-09 (11th Cir. 1994)
(internal citations omitted).
We reject McCoy’s contention that the indictment was constructively
amended. The indictment alleged that McCoy violated section 1462 by using an
interactive computer service for the transportation of “obscene stories,” or
“obscene ‘fantasy’ stories” that were downloaded from McCoy’s websites “into
the Middle District of Georgia and elsewhere.” The government introduced into
evidence all of the stories downloaded from McCoy’s websites and the district
court found McCoy guilty only after concluding that those stories were obscene
under the Miller standard. The district court’s focus on 18 of McCoy’s stories did
not deviate from the allegations in the indictment. Nor did the district court’s
focus on the 18 stories expand the indictment in any way. Thus, McCoy’s claim
11
Case: 13-14350 Date Filed: 03/12/2015 Page: 12 of 12
of a constructive amendment is without merit.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm McCoy’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
12