On October 26, 2011, Detective Darin Odier ("Det. Odier") with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was conducting an investigation to identify persons possessing and sharing suspected child pornography using internet share and exchange files. Detective Odier was able to download shared files which he believed depicted images of child pornography from an IP address. The subscriber of the IP address was identified as Christopher Eads and the server address was identified as 311 Grant Street, Apt. B, Brownsburg, Indiana.
On December 21, 2011, a five count indictment was filed charging Eads with: (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) by distributing child pornography; (2) violation of 2252(a)(4)(B) by possessing child pornography; (3) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) felon in possession of a firearm; (4) violation 18 U.S.C. § 912 by impersonating a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and (5) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) by unlawfully tampering with a witness.
Mr. Eads elected to represent himself in the jury trial. On February 12, 2012 Mr. Eads filed a Notice of Intent to Exercise Right of Self-Representation during his speedy trial which was scheduled to begin on February 21, 2012. On February 17, 2012, the Court conducted a Faretta hearing wherein Mr. Eads was advised that while he has a constitutional right to self-representation, he was entitled to court-appointed counsel. The Court also advised Mr. Eads of the nature of the charges, the penalties he was facing and inquired as to Mr. Eads' educational background, and familiarity with the rules of evidence and trial procedure. The Court encouraged Mr. Eads to allow FCD counsel to represent him in light of the hazards and disadvantages of self-representation.
From February 21, 2012 until February 24, 2012, a four-day jury trial was held in this criminal matter on three of the counts charged: (1) distributing child pornography; (2) possessing child pornography; and (5) unlawfully tampering with a witness. On February 24, 201, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all three counts.
Mr. Eads' 24 grounds for a new trial can be categorized as (1) newly discovered evidence and (2) other grounds, including assertions that he was on anti-anxiety medication which affected his ability to represent himself, allegations that certain witnesses were not allowed to testify, allegations that his wife, Mrs. Eads, was threatened if she testified, allegations that the jury should not have been allowed to view certain evidence, and allegations that stand-by counsel did not perform adequately.
Eads bore a heavy burden on his motion for new trial. Evidentiary rulings by the trial court do not warrant a new trial unless the defendant can clearly demonstrate that the court abused its wide discretion. United States v. West,670 F.2d 675, 682-8 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124, 102 S.Ct. 2944, 73 L.Ed.2d 1340 (1982). In order to prevail, a defendant must demonstrate that substantial prejudicial error occurred during the trial.
The jury's verdict is entitled to presumptive validity and the trial court should exercise its authority in this area only in the cases when it is convinced that a gross injustice will have been done if it fails to act. US v Gross, 375 F.Supp. at 973-4.
Eads based his argument for a new trial on:
1. Newly Discovered Evidence
Eads bore a heavy burden on his motion for new trial. Evidentiary rulings by the trial court do not warrant a new trial unless the defendant can clearly demonstrate that the court abused its wide discretion. United States v. West,670 F.2d 675, 682-8 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124, 102 S.Ct. 2944, 73 L.Ed.2d 1340 (1982). In order to prevail, a defendant must demonstrate that substantial prejudicial error occurred during the trial.
The jury's verdict is entitled to presumptive validity and the trial court should exercise its authority in this area only in the cases when it is convinced that a gross injustice will have been done if it fails to act. US v Gross, 375 F.Supp. at 973-4.
Eads based his argument for a new trial on:
1. Newly Discovered Evidence
To obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must show that the evidence: (1) was discovered after trial; (2) could not have been discovered sooner with due diligence; (3) was material and not simply impeaching or cumulative; and (4) if presented at a new trial would probably result in acquittal. United States v. Reyes, 542 F.3d 588, 595 (7th Cir. 2008). Eads argues that his Mother could present abili evidence, but the Court found that such "alibi" evidence from Mr. Eads' mother, even if presented, would have been cumulative and probably not have changed the outcome of the jury's verdict.
2. Other Grounds
A. Anti-anxiety medication affected Mr. Eads' ability to represent himself at trial.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(2) provides that a district court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.
Mr. Eads alleged that he was on medication during the trial which made him "drowsy and loopsy". During the trial, Mr. Eads did not inform the Court that his anxiety medication was affecting his ability to proceed as his own counsel. In his motion for a New Trial, Eads presented no evidence that indicated he was under the influence of such medication during the course of the Jury Trial. At no time did the Court observe Mr. Eads appearing disoriented, drowsy or "loopsy". In fact, Mr. Eads was alert and quite competent during the trial proceedings.
B. Certain witnesses were not allowed to testify.
Mr. Eads proffers that several witnesses' testimony would have been critical to his case, however these witnesses were not allowed to testify. Mr. Eads' arguments fail, primarily because as his own counsel, he could have called any of the witnesses. The Court found\ no evidence to support Mr. Eads' allegations that he was "not allowed" to call any of the witnesses he complained of.
C. Rachael Eads was threatened if she testified.
Eads alleges that his wife was threatened (presumably with prosecution for perjury and loss of her child) by the government agents and her own lawyer; however Mr. Eads' assertions lack foundation. Eads cited United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir.1998) to support his position that substantial government interference hampered Mrs. Eads' choice to testify. However, the facts in this case were found to be clearly distinguishable from those in Vavages.
D. The jury should not have been allowed to view certain evidence.
Eads complained of several evidentiary violations as grounds for a new trial. However, evidentiary rulings by the trial court do not warrant a new trial unless the defendant can clearly demonstrate that the court abused its wide discretion. United States v West, 670 F.2d 675 682-8 (7th Cir.).
E. Stand-by counsel did not perform adequately.
Finally, Mr. Eads complains that standby counsel, Mr. Dazey, did not perform adequately. Because Mr. Eads waived his right to counsel and exercised his right to self-representation, Mr. Dazey's participation in the trial was only as stand-by counsel. A defendant is not entitled to relief for the ineffectiveness of standby counsel." See U.S. v Woodard, 2008 WL 513159 (N.D. Ind. 2008).
The Court found that Mr. Eads failed to meet his burden to show that a gross injustice would occur if he was not granted a new trial. Accordingly, Mr. Eads' Motion for New Trial (Dkts. 83-4, 87, 95 and 99) was DENIED.
Traditional Legal Wisdom advises that Only a Fool would choose to represent himself.
Good advice.
Traditional Legal Wisdom advises that Only a Fool would choose to represent himself.
Good advice.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRISTOPHER JUSTIN EADS
Case No. 1:11-cr-00239-TWP-KPF
United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
May 4, 2012.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3116397327714677231&q=MySpace&hl=en&as_sdt=4,14,112,127,268,269,270,271,272,314,315,331,332,333,334,335,377,378&as_ylo=2012
