Although things have come a long way, many parts of the Internet are still the Wild, Wild West when it comes to Pornography. Our First Amendment Rights and the welfare of our children have been carefully weighed time and time again and the decisions have always left room for child molesters to find a way to perpetuate their crimes. This case is far more shocking than most since it involves the abuse of pre-teen children and even infants.The language has been edited slightly, but appears in fully unedited form in this case, exactly as it appears on line. The cruelty of the offenders is even more shocking but is presented precisely as it was related by the defendants in this case.
Christopher McCoy, 49, pleaded guilty to using the Internet to entice a minor to engage in illicit sexual activity, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); transferring obscene matter to a minor, id. § 1470; and receiving, id. § 2252(a)(2), possessing, id. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and distributing child pornography, id. § 2252(a)(2). The district court sentenced him to a total of 327 months' imprisonment, the top of the guidelines range. On appeal McCoy argues that the district court relied on unsupported conjecture to reach his sentence. As part of an ongoing investigation into child pornography, an undercover officer represented himself as a 14-year-old boy and engaged in sexually explicit Internet chats with McCoy. Following these chats and the sending of nude photos and a camera via email and regular mail police investigated. As a result of the investigation, authorities learned that McCoy had taken part in sexually explicit conversations with children over the Internet. Using Facebook, he had sent unsolicited messages to over a dozen individuals between October 2010 and January 2011, including at least six people who responded and represented themselves as girls ages 8 to 15.
To a woman whose Facebook profile picture depicted her and an infant, he wrote: "I know you both need my c**k . . . . Share your little girl with me. I know her c**t is sweet. I know she would nurse on my c**k." He asked a girl he believed to be age 15 whether she had thought about letting her brother "knock her up." He told another 14-year-old that he always had "wanted to grab a girl off a playground and take her somewhere and just use her and then just throw her away." About his sexual fantasies involving babies, McCoy said to a 13-year-old girl:
If I had a supply of little ones I would use them up. I know for a fact I would rape them over and over `til they died on my c**k with me c**ming in them as their death spasms rock their bodies. Just use them and throw them away like a tissue after jerking off.
I like to feel them tear, yes. I was choking her but I didn't have to kill the little brat (laugh out loud). I should have. My c**k was covered in her blood from her torn p***y and her ripped a**hole.
McCoy pleaded guilty to all five counts in the indictment. A probation officer calculated McCoy's guidelines range by grouping the counts of transfer of obscene matter to a minor and receipt, possession, and distribution of child pornography. See U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.2, 3D1.3.
The statutory minimum penalty is ten years for enticement, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), five years for distributing the images, id. § 2252(b)(2), and five years for receiving the images, id. § 2252(b)(2).
The district court adopted the findings of the probation officer, and neither side objected. The government argued for a sentence of 327 months, citing extensively to 78 pages of transcripts that were generated from McCoy's interactions on the Internet and through text messages. The government also pointed out that the number of images McCoy possessed was 54 times greater than the maximum contemplated by the guidelines and emphasized that approximately one-third of the images were of infants and toddlers. The government referenced the more-heinous examples, including a video of an adult having sex with a toddler and an image of an adult male penis inside the mouth of an infant with a bib.
The district court explained that McCoy's counsel had made "as good an argument as one could make defending these seemingly indefensible acts," which the judge called horrendous and egregious. But ultimately the court rejected McCoy's request for a sentence below the guidelines range.
Christopher McCoy, 49, pleaded guilty to using the Internet to entice a minor to engage in illicit sexual activity, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); transferring obscene matter to a minor, id. § 1470; and receiving, id. § 2252(a)(2), possessing, id. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and distributing child pornography, id. § 2252(a)(2). The district court sentenced him to a total of 327 months' imprisonment, the top of the guidelines range. On appeal McCoy argues that the district court relied on unsupported conjecture to reach his sentence. As part of an ongoing investigation into child pornography, an undercover officer represented himself as a 14-year-old boy and engaged in sexually explicit Internet chats with McCoy. Following these chats and the sending of nude photos and a camera via email and regular mail police investigated. As a result of the investigation, authorities learned that McCoy had taken part in sexually explicit conversations with children over the Internet. Using Facebook, he had sent unsolicited messages to over a dozen individuals between October 2010 and January 2011, including at least six people who responded and represented themselves as girls ages 8 to 15.
To a woman whose Facebook profile picture depicted her and an infant, he wrote: "I know you both need my c**k . . . . Share your little girl with me. I know her c**t is sweet. I know she would nurse on my c**k." He asked a girl he believed to be age 15 whether she had thought about letting her brother "knock her up." He told another 14-year-old that he always had "wanted to grab a girl off a playground and take her somewhere and just use her and then just throw her away." About his sexual fantasies involving babies, McCoy said to a 13-year-old girl:
If I had a supply of little ones I would use them up. I know for a fact I would rape them over and over `til they died on my c**k with me c**ming in them as their death spasms rock their bodies. Just use them and throw them away like a tissue after jerking off.
I like to feel them tear, yes. I was choking her but I didn't have to kill the little brat (laugh out loud). I should have. My c**k was covered in her blood from her torn p***y and her ripped a**hole.McCoy pleaded guilty to all five counts in the indictment. A probation officer calculated McCoy's guidelines range by grouping the counts of transfer of obscene matter to a minor and receipt, possession, and distribution of child pornography. See U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.2, 3D1.3.
The statutory minimum penalty is ten years for enticement, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), five years for distributing the images, id. § 2252(b)(2), and five years for receiving the images, id. § 2252(b)(2).
The district court adopted the findings of the probation officer, and neither side objected. The government argued for a sentence of 327 months, citing extensively to 78 pages of transcripts that were generated from McCoy's interactions on the Internet and through text messages. The government also pointed out that the number of images McCoy possessed was 54 times greater than the maximum contemplated by the guidelines and emphasized that approximately one-third of the images were of infants and toddlers. The government referenced the more-heinous examples, including a video of an adult having sex with a toddler and an image of an adult male penis inside the mouth of an infant with a bib. The district court explained that McCoy's counsel had made "as good an argument as one could make defending these seemingly indefensible acts," which the judge called horrendous and egregious. But ultimately the court rejected McCoy's request for a sentence below the guidelines range.
Because the district court's sentence was found reasonable and supported by the record, the Court affirmed the judgment.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER H. McCOY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-1317.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
RULE 32.1 CITING JUDICIAL DISPOSITIONS
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_32.1
