United States v. John Fritz

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 09-4238
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOHN HAMMES FRITZ,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 2-07-cr-00629-001)
District Judge: The Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
November 18, 2011
BEFORE: RENDELL, AMBRO, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 30, 2011)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge
While on probation from a 2006 conviction for possession of child pornography, a
consensual search of Appellant John Fritz’s home computer revealed illicit images and
movies containing child pornography. Subsequent forensic examination of the computer
revealed over seven hundred images and over eighty movies.
Fritz was convicted on one count of possession of child pornography, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and one count of transporting child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). On appeal, Fritz challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence used to convict him. We will affirm.
I.
Pursuant to the parole conditions of a 2006 possession of child pornography
conviction, probation officer Mark Giordano searched Fritz’s home computer.
Giordano’s initial search revealed both adult and child pornography. Fritz’s computer
was confiscated along with two external hard drives.
Upon returning to his office, Giordano conducted a more in-depth examination of
the computer, uncovering additional images of child pornography. A subsequent forensic
examination by the United States Secret Service revealed over seven hundred images and
more than eighty movies of child pornography. These files could only be accessed with a
password. Fritz also sent more than 40 images of child pornography to another person
over the internet. Evidence from the electronic monitoring device Fritz wore as a
condition of his parole established when he came and went from his residence, supporting
the conclusion that all of the pornography found on Fritz’s computer was downloaded
while Fritz was at home.
II.
2
On appeal, Fritz does not argue that the images of child pornography were not on
his home computer; he maintains that he did not place them there. He submits that, in
light of the testimony of witnesses who related that Fritz’s computer was in a location
accessible by many, the Government’s evidence was insufficient to convict him. We
disagree.
Fritz’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is “subject to a deferential
standard . . . under which we construe all evidence in favor of the Government and will
only reverse if ‘[no] reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Al-Ame, 434 F.3d 614, 616 (3d
Cir. 2006) (alterations in the original) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979)).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(5)(B), it is unlawful to knowingly possess any
material that contains an image of child pornography that has been mailed, shipped, or
transported in interstate commerce. Hence, the only issue with respect to the sufficiency
of the evidence is whether Fritz knowingly possessed the images of child pornography.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, established that: (1)
Fritz’s computer was located in his bedroom, which he occupied alone; (2) the computer
in Fritz’s bedroom contained the files of child pornography which had been transferred
from file-sharing sites to the computer on numerous occasions; (3) on the occasions that
files containing child pornography were transferred from the file-sharing website to
Fritz’s computer, electronic monitoring revealed that Fritz was in his residence; (4) the
files were located on password-protected accounts on Fritz’s computer; and (5) a
3
photograph of Fritz himself was found in one computer folder containing child
pornography.
At trial, Fritz maintained that his bedroom was “party central” and that he
permitted others to use his computer and download material. To support his theory, Fritz
presented the testimony of two witnesses. William Ashton testified that, while many
people had access to Fritz’s computer, he never witnessed anyone viewing child
pornography on it. Ashton further testified that he witnessed an unidentified person
connecting a device to the USB port of Fritz’s computer. Christina Anderson also
testified that she saw an individual named “Sean” download pornography while using
Fritz’s computer. Anderson later modified her testimony, adding that the images she
saw were of teen-aged females in various poses.
The Government countered this testimony by establishing, first, that the
pornography on Fritz’s computer was not downloaded from a device attached to the USB
port, but rather from the internet, and second, that the images Anderson viewed were not
representative of those found on Fritz’s computer.
The jury is responsible for weighing the evidence and making credibility
determinations. See United States v. Mercado, 610 F.3d 841, 845 (3d Cir. 2010). Here,
the jury determined that the evidence established that Fritz possessed child pornography
on his computer. When the evidence in this case is viewed “in the light most favorable to
the Government with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in support of
a conviction,” a rational trier of fact could have found Fritz guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id.
4
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the District Court’s judgment of conviction and
sentence will be affirmed in all respects.
5