United States v. Leon Perry Brooks, Sr.

Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 1 of 13
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11695
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cr-00229-TJC-JRK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff -Appellee,
versus
LEON PERRY BROOKS, SR.,
Defendant -Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 12, 2016)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 2 of 13
Leon Brooks, Sr. appeals his convictions for knowingly possessing child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) & (b)(2). Mr. Brooks
asserts three arguments on appeal. He first contends that the district court abused
its discretion by allowing the jury to view short video clips of the child
pornography that was found on a computer in his home because under Federal
Rule of Evidence 403 their probative value was far outweighed by their prejudicial
nature. He next argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for
judgment of acquittal because the government did not prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that he knowingly possessed child pornography. Finally, he claims that the
district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial based upon
the weight of the evidence. He says that the evidence he presented shows that he is
not guilty, and that the district court erred in not granting him a new trial.
Following review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
affirm Mr. Brook’s convictions.
I
In January of 2013, Detective Anthony Durfee of the Jacksonville County
Sherriff’s Office received a tip that an individual was sharing child pornography
over a file sharing network. Detective Durfee downloaded two videos containing
child pornography from the network. With the aid of a subpoena issued to AT&T,
2
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 3 of 13
he was able to obtain information concerning the source of these videos. The
videos came from an account that belonged to Mr. Brooks.
Detective Durfee proceeded to interview Mr. Brooks. During the interview,
Mr. Brooks stated that his family accessed the Internet through a desktop
computer, an iPad, and cellphones. Mr. Brooks later mentioned that there was also
a laptop used for Internet access. Mr. Brooks admitted that he occasionally looked
for adult pornography on the internet, but that he had never searched for child
pornography. Mr. Brooks also mentioned that he had hired a man named Al to do
some work on one of the computers, and that Al had done some of that work
remotely. Mr. Books said that he did not have Al’s contact information, but Al’s
phone number was found in his cellphone under the heading of “Computer Man.”
Mr. Brooks’ home was searched pursuant to a search warrant. The officers
seized one desktop computer, two laptops, cellphones, CDs, and DVDs from the
home. The desktop computer and one of the laptops contained items relating to
child pornography.
The laptop contained three password protected profiles: Leelike, Angelyna,
and Guest. The Leelike and Angelyna profiles had the same password. The
Leelike profile was the only profile that contained child pornography. Its video
directory contained 13 videos titled with terms commonly associated with child
pornography, such as “pthc,” which stands for preteen hardcore. Eleven of those 13
3
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 4 of 13
videos contained child pornography. One of the videos was the source of the video
downloaded by Detective Durfee. In addition, 28 additional images of child
pornography were also found after performing a thumbnail analysis on the hard
drive. Three of those images matched videos in the directory, and there were an
additional 18 unique images. Two recently deleted files containing the term “pthc”
were found in an additional video directory. A media player on the laptop had
recently played a video that contained “pthc” in the title. There were also
numerous file sharing programs on the laptop. The top 10 video search terms in
one of the programs were all related to child pornography.
An examination of the desktop computer revealed similar files containing
child pornography. There were four profiles on that computer: Leon, Angelyna,
Leon Jr., and Guest. All of the child pornography was discovered under the Leon
profile. An analysis of the desktop revealed several files containing terms
associated with child pornography in the title. There were four screenshots
discovered that contained children involved in explicit sexual conduct.
II
A grand jury indicted Mr. Books on two counts of knowingly receiving child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) & (b)(1); one count of
distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) & (b)(1);
4
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 5 of 13
and one count of knowingly possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C
§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). Mr. Brooks pled not and proceeded to trial.
At trial the government presented testimony from several witnesses.
Detective Durfee testified about his investigation and interview of Mr. Brooks. Mr.
Brooks’ son testified that he had access to the computer, but never downloaded or
searched for child pornography. Al, the “computer man,” testified that he had
worked on a desktop for Mr. Brooks and told him about file sharing programs, but
denied that he had searched for or downloaded pornography on any of Mr. Brooks’
devices. Finally, FBI Special Agent James Greenmum testified that he performed a
forensic analysis of the computer and discovered child pornography, and that he
was able to tell when the files were created.
The government then introduced four video clips from four different videos
of child pornography. The clips were all less than 20 seconds in duration. The clips
were muted and three of them depicted vaginal, anal, and attempted vaginal
penetration of young girls. The fourth clip depicted two young girls kissing and
performing oral sex on one another.
For his part, Mr. Brooks called several witnesses, including his wife to
testify about his good character and explain that he was a law abiding citizen. Mr.
Brooks took the stand and denied any allegations of wrongdoing. He attempted to
shift blame for the child pornography to his son or his son’s friends.
5
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 6 of 13
The jury returned guilty verdicts for lesser–included offenses for counts one
through three, and found Mr. Brooks guilty as charged for count four; resulting in
four convictions for possession of child pornography. The district court sentenced
Mr. Brooks to 21 months’ imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently,
followed by a term of five years of supervised release.
III
Mr. Brooks first argues that the district court erred in allowing the
government to publish to the jury the brief clips of the child pornography extracted
from his laptop. He argues that the disturbing nature of the videos was unfairly
prejudicial and outweighed their probative value under Rule 403. We disagree, and
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Dodds, 347 F.3d 893, 897 (11th Cir. 2003). Rule 403 permits the
district court to exclude otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The exclusion of
evidence “is an extraordinary remedy which the district court should invoke
sparingly, and the balance should be struck in favor of admissibility.” United
States v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720, 734 (11th Cir. 2010). When we examine
Rule 403 issues on appeal, we scrutinize the evidence in the light most favorable to
6
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 7 of 13
its admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its undue prejudicial
impact. See id.
The district court’s decision to admit the clips of the videos is consistent
with our decision in Alfaro-Moncada. In that case, we held that a district court did
not abuse its discretion by allowing five still images of child pornography to be
shown to the jury, where the admission of those still images served a valid
purpose. See Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d at 734. In this case, there were four total
videos of child pornography that totaled over 25 minutes in duration. The district
court allowed the government to play four clips, all lasting less than 20 seconds
each, and performed the same Rule 403 balancing test that was performed in
Alfaro-Moncada. See id. Much like the still images in Alfaro-Moncada, the
admission of the clips have served a valid purpose. The clips proved that the files
were actually child pornography. The clips also helped demonstrate Mr. Brooks’
knowledge of what the clips contained. Demonstrating that each file actually
contained child pornography also went directly to intent. The clips tended to show
that files of a certain type were being assembled into a collection. The admission of
the video clips, in short, served a valid purpose. See id.; Dodds, 347 F.3d at 899.
We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not
allowing Mr. Brooks to stipulate that the files actually contained child
pornography. “The prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own
7
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 8 of 13
choice, or, more exactly, that a criminal defendant may not stipulate or admit his
way out of the full evidentiary force of the case as the government chooses to
present it.” Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d at 734 (citing Old Chief v. United States,
519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997). Under the facts of this case, the district court correctly
allowed the prosecution to reject Mr. Brooks’ offer to stipulate that the files
contained child pornography.
In sum, the district court properly balanced the probative value and
prejudicial nature of the clips by limiting their length and by providing a
cautionary instruction. The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding
that the risk of prejudice from the video clips did not substantially outweigh their
probative value.
IV
Mr. Brooks next argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for
judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. He asserts that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his
convictions. Mr. Brooks is mistaken, as the jury had enough evidence to convict
him.
We review a properly preserved claim for judgment of acquittal de novo. See
United States v. Jiminez, 654 F.3d 1280, 1284 (11th Cir. 2009). We review the
evidence presented in the light most favorable to the government, and draw all
8
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 9 of 13
reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Dulcio,
441 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006). We look only to see if a “reasonable fact-
finder could have determined that the evidence proved the defendant’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276, 1286 (11th Cir.
2006). We will not disturb a guilty verdict unless the evidence presented clearly
shows that no reasonable trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. See United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1327(11th Cir. 2005).
Here, the district court reserved making a ruling on the Rule 29 motion at
both the close of the government’s case-in-chief and at the close of evidence.
When a district court reserves ruling on a motion for a judgment of acquittal, it
must decide the motion based upon the evidence that had been entered into the
record at the time the ruling was reserved. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b). We similarly
review only the evidence that was in the record when the motion was made. See
United States v. Moore, 504 F.3d 1345, 1347 (11th Cir. 2007).
In order to secure a conviction under 18 U.S.C § 2252(a)(4)(B) the
government must prove that a person knowingly possessed child pornography. See
Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d at 733. The knowledge element is satisfied when the
defendant knows that the matter in question shows minors engaging in sexually
explicit conduct. See id. The knowledge element may be proved circumstantially.
See United States v. Utter, 97 F.3d 509, 512 (11th Cir. 1996).
9
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 10 of 13
There was sufficient evidence in the government’s case in chief to support a
conviction. The government’s case in chief included the following: evidence that
one of the videos downloaded by Detective Durfee was an exact match to one of
the ones on Mr. Brooks’ laptop; Mr. Brooks’ false denial of having Al’s contact
information; Mr. Brooks’ failure to mention the laptop during his interview with
Detective Durfee, the fact that the child pornography on the laptop and desktop
was only found on Mr. Brooks’ profiles; the fact that the first download of child
pornography occurred only a few days after a file sharing program was installed on
his laptop; the search terms in the file sharing program were related to child
pornography; and that the child pornography files had been refined through
deletions and re-naming. The government also had Mr. Brooks’ son testify that he
had never used the laptop for child pornography and that he had not used the
desktop computer at all.
The government’s evidence was circumstantial. Nevertheless, it was still
enough to permit a reasonable jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that
Mr. Brooks possessed child pornography. See Smith, 459 F.3d at 1286; United
States v. Pruitt; 638 F.3d 763, 766 (11th Cir. 2011).
Mr. Brooks asserts that the evidence he presented at trial was enough to
contradict the government’s evidence so that no rational fact finder could have
found him guilty. To recap, he put on testimony from his wife and other witnesses
10
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 11 of 13
about his good character and his law abidingness. He took the stand in his own
defense and maintained that he was innocent throughout the proceedings and
attempted to provide alibis for some of the dates in which the child pornography
was downloaded. He also attempted to shift the blame for the child pornography
onto his son or his son’s friends.
Mr. Brooks’ argument comes down to choices about credibility and
inferences, and those are generally choices for the jury to make. Moreover, a jury
is free to disbelieve a defendant who takes the stand and believe the opposite of
what he says. See United States v. Mullis, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995).
Based on the evidence presented, we find no error on the part of the district court
denying Mr. Brooks’ Rule 29 motion at the close of evidence.
V
Finally, Mr. Brooks challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a
new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We are
not persuaded.
We review a district court’s disposition of a motion for new trial for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1312 (11th Cir. 1985).
“On a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence, the court need
not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. It may weigh the
evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses.” Id. Motions for a new trial
11
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 12 of 13
are granted sparingly and only for an exceptional case. See id. A new trial for
example, may be the appropriate remedy when the government’s witnesses have
been severely impeached and the government’s case has been marked by
discrepancies. See id.
This is not an exceptional case, and the weight of the evidence presented did
not warrant granting Mr. Brooks a new trial. The government’s witnesses were not
impeached. The government’s case was circumstantial, but it was not marred by
discrepancies. Mr. Brooks’ competing theory that his son or someone else
repeatedly downloaded the child pornography and refined the files over time was
heard and rejected by the jury. Mr. Brooks’ alternative theory did not present any
discrepancies in the government’s case; it simply presented a different view of the
facts and attempted to shift the blame to someone else. Although it did provide a
counter weight to the evidence put forward by the government, it did provide
enough weight to warrant a reversal of the district court’s denial of a motion for
new trial.
In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Brooks
a new trial. The evidence presented at trial did not preponderate heavily against the
guilty verdicts, such that to let them stand would be a miscarriage of justice. See
Martinez, 763 F.2d at 1313.
12
Case: 15-11695 Date Filed: 04/12/2016 Page: 13 of 13
VI
We affirm Mr. Brooks’ convictions.
AFFIRMED
13