Case 2:14-cr-00110-JS Document 59 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.
CHRISTOPHER STEELE

:
:

CRIMINAL NO. 14-110

ORDER
AND NOW, this

day of _____________________, 2014, upon

consideration of the Defendant=s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and the government=s response
thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant=s Motion is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ
Judge, United States District Court

Case 2:14-cr-00110-JS Document 59 Filed 11/24/14 Page 2 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.
CHRISTOPHER STEELE

:
:

CRIMINAL NO. 14-110

GOVERNMENT=S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

I.

INTRODUCTION
The United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, Zane David

Memeger, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Michelle Rotella,
Assistant United States Attorney for the district, submits this response in opposition to
defendants Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.
II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 6, 2014, the grand jury issued a 3-count indictment against Christopher

Steele, charging him with use of an interstate commerce facility to entice a minor to engage in
sexual conduct in Count One, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 2422(b); interstate travel with the intent
to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor in Count Two, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 2423(b);
and in Count Three with receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2). On
October 1, 2014, after trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of all charges in the indictment.
This Motion for Judgment of Acquittal now follows.

Case 2:14-cr-00110-JS Document 59 Filed 11/24/14 Page 3 of 9

III.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By way of this Motion, the defendant now challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence on Count Three of the indictment, receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18

U.S.C. 2252(a)(2). At trial, the uncontroverted evidence established that the defendant first
communicated with the 14 year old victim through Jackd, a cell phone application. The victim
testified that he used his cell phone and also his IPad to access the Jackd application to text the
defendant and to send the defendant sexually explicit images of himself. This was also confirmed
by the governments computer forensic expert, Montgomery County Detective David Schanes,
through his examination of the victims cell phone and IPad. Detective Schanes testified that
the victim had the Jackd application installed on his equipment, and that there were sexually
explicit images contained in his account.
Additionally, Detective Schanes testified that he examined the defendants Jackd
account as well, from records that the Montgomery County District Attorneys Office received
from Jackd as part of this investigation.

His examination of the defendants Jackd account

verified that the sexually explicit images of the 14 year old victim had been received by the
defendant 1. Though he could not identify a specific date for any of the images through his
forensic exam or from the records received from Jackd, Detective Schanes nonetheless
identified the file path for one of the images sent from the victims IPad and received by the
defendant through their communications on the Jackd account 2.

1 The first sexually explicit image admitted at trial (Government Exhibits 7 cropped, and 28) depicts the 14 year
old victim naked, lying on his back with his legs stretched back toward his head to expose his anus, which is the focal
point of the picture. The second image found on the defendants Jackd account depicts the same 14 year old victim,
clad in very distinctive red and black underwear. The focal point of the photo is the victims erect penis.
(Governments Exhibit 6). In addition to the photos, the actual undergarment was also admitted at trial, turned over
to police by the victim. (Governments Exhibit 36).
2 See Governments Exhibit 40. Though the forensic exam could not identify a specific date when the defendant
received any of the sexually explicit images, the victim testified that he sent the images in the summer of 2013, and the

Case 2:14-cr-00110-JS Document 59 Filed 11/24/14 Page 4 of 9

Lastly, Detective Schanes explained how the cell phone application Jackd
worked, namely that it is an Internet based application, and that any communications over Jackd
utilize the Internet, regardless of whether an IPhone, an Android phone, or an IPad was used to
access the Jackd application.

Most specifically, Detective Schanes testified that any

communications whatsoever over Jackd including photographs sent or received - would use
the Internet in the process. Detective Shanes testimony was uncontroverted at trial, as the
defendant did not call his own forensic expert, did not offer contradicting evidence through any
other source, and did not elicit any differing evidence through cross examination.
IV.

LEGAL ARGUMENT
Defendant now challenges, post verdict, the sufficiency of the evidence as to his

conviction of receipt of child pornography, as charged in Count Three of the Indictment, claiming
that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant knowingly received child
pornography. The government submits that there was more than ample evidence to submit to the
jury on this count, and his Motion should be denied.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c) requires that a motion for judgment of acquittal must be filed
within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later. A
defendant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence bears a heavy burden. United States v.
Casper, 956 F.2d 416, 421 (3d Cir. 1992). The Third Circuit has stated, when deciding whether a
jury verdict rests on legally sufficient evidence [i]t is not for us to weigh the evidence or to
determine the credibility of the witnesses. Rather, we must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, and will sustain the verdict if any rational trier of fact could have
defendants statement to police on the night of his arrest confirmed that all contact he had with the victim was in the
summer of 2013 he met the victim on Jackd in the summer of 2013, engaged in sexual chats during that time, and he
traveled to Pennsylvania and engaged in oral and anal sex with the victim during the summer of 2013. Count Three of
the indictment charged the crime as being committed in the summer of 2013.

Case 2:14-cr-00110-JS Document 59 Filed 11/24/14 Page 5 of 9

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Dent, 149
F.3d 180, 187 (internal citations omitted); see also Jackson v. Virgina, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19
(1979) (an inquiry into the sufficiency of the evidence does not require a court to ask itself
whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.).
When viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence here was
clearly sufficient for a rational jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of
the receipt of child pornography offense 3. Receipt of child pornography is codified at 18 U.S.C.
2252(a)(2), and provides that a defendant is guilty when:
Any person who knowingly receives, or distributes, any visual depiction
using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce, or that has
been mailed or shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce.., if --(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a
minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) such visual depiction is of such conduct.
Sexually explicit conduct is defined as actual or simulated sexual intercourse
(including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the
same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic areas of any person. 18 U.S.C. 2256. In this case, the images
depict the lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of the 14 year old victim. The court in
3 Defendant raises arguments regarding the crime of obscenity several times in his Motion , and cites cases in
support of that argument. It is difficult to discern the relevancy of that argument, as the charges in this case involve
receipt of child pornography and not obscenity, and the standards for evaluating criminal liability for each charge are
completely different. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982); United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 733, 749-50; United
States v. Villard, 885 F.2d at 120.

Case 2:14-cr-00110-JS Document 59 Filed 11/24/14 Page 6 of 9

United States v. Dost developed six factors for the trier of fact to use in analyzing what constitutes
a Alascivious exhibition of the genitals@:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child=s genitalia or
pubic area;
whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a
place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;
whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire,
considering the age of the child;
whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to
engage in sexual activity;
whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual
response in the viewer.

636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986). The Dost factors were adopted by the Third Circuit for
use in defining Alasciviousness.@ See United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 733, 746 (3d Cir. 1994).
Determining whether a visual depiction is Alascivious@ is an issue of fact for the jury. United
States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1987)4.
In this case, the defendant claims the evidence was insufficient to establish the
knowledge element of the receipt of child pornography charge. In United States v. Miller, 527

4 Though the defendant does not definitively challenge the interstate element as part of this Motion, the Government
established this element beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, as the Internet is undeniably a facility of interstate or
foreign commerce. See United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237, 244 (3rd Cir. 2006) (we conclude that because of
the very interstate nature of the Internet, once a user submits a connection request to a website server or an image is
transmitted from the website server back to user, the data has traveled in interstate commerce. Here, once the images
of child pornography left the website server and entered the complex global data transmission system that is the
Internet, the images were being transmitted in interstate commerce. Having concluded that the Internet is an
instrumentality and channel of interstate commerce, it therefore does not matter whether MacEwan downloaded the
images from a server located within Pennsylvania or whether those images were transmitted across state lines. It is
sufficient that MacEwan downloaded those images from the Internet, a system that is inexorably intertwined with
interstate commerce.). See also United States v. Carroll, 105 F.3d 740, 742 (1st Cir. 1997) (transmission of
photographs by means of the Internet is tantamount to moving photographs across state lines and thus constitutes
transportation in interstate commerce. ) cited and quoted with approval, MacEwan, 445 F.3d at 244; United States v.
Runyan, 290 F3d 223, 242 (5th Cir. 2002)(finding circumstantial evidence that links a particular image to the internet
can be sufficient evidence of interstate transportation to support a conviction in child pornography case); United States
v. Mellies, 329 Fed.Appx. 592 (6th Cir. 2009)(not published)(finding proper an instruction that any image of child
pornography that was transmitted or received over the Internet moved in interstate commerce); United States v.
Helder, 452 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hicks, 457 F.3d 838, 841 (8th Cir. 2006).

Case 2:14-cr-00110-JS Document 59 Filed 11/24/14 Page 7 of 9

F.3d 54 (3d Cir. 2008), the Third Circuit identified a number of factors relevant to the inquiry of
whether receipt of child pornography was accomplished knowingly: (1) whether images were
found on the defendant's computer; (2) the number of images of child pornography that were
found...; (3) whether the content of the images was evident from their file names ... [;] (4)
defendant's knowledge of and ability to access the storage area for the images ... [; and (5) ] the
number of occasions that the images were copied [or downloaded]. Id. at 67, 69. Applying those
factors, the evidence was more than sufficient to have submitted the receipt charge to the jury.
First, the images were found on the defendants own Jackd account. Second, though there were
only two images, they cannot be viewed in isolation. They depicted a child with whom the
defendant had just had oral and anal sex. They were not of some random child, or images that had
been taken from the Internet. Indeed, this defendant knew this child, had engaged in sexually
explicit chats with him over the Jackd account, and had traveled to engage in sex with him. The
jury certainly had sufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly received these two images
and saved them as a memento of his sexual encounter with this child. The third factor is not
relevant to this case, as there were no file names for any of the images on Jackd. The fourth
factor is present, as the victim testified that he communicated exclusively over the Jackd
application with this defendant, and the defendant admitted in his statement to police that he met
the victim on Jackd and only communicated with him through his Jackd account.
Thus, at least three of the five Miller factors are present in this case. Because a
rational juror could conclude, based on that evidence, that Steele knowingly received the image,
his Rule 29 challenge must fail. Viewing the evidence as a whole, a rational jury couldand did,
in little more than an hourconclude that the defendant knowingly received the images that were
charged. See United States v. Franz, 2014 WL 5565457 *15 (3d. Circ. 2014). Accordingly, the

Case 2:14-cr-00110-JS Document 59 Filed 11/24/14 Page 8 of 9

government requests that defendants Motion be denied.

V.

CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, the government requests that the defendants Motion for Judgment

of Acquittal Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 29 be denied.

Respectfully submitted,
ZANE DAVID MEMEGER
United States Attorney

/s Michelle Rotella
MICHELLE ROTELLA
Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:14-cr-00110-JS Document 59 Filed 11/24/14 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Governments response to
Defendants Motion for Judgment of Acquittal has been served via electronic filing and email
delivery upon:
Kevin Wray, Esquire
kevinmwrayesq@gmail.com

/s Michelle Rotella
MICHELLE ROTELLA
Assistant United States Attorney

Date:

November 24, 2014.