Elgin officials shocked by child porn investigation of ex-Rep. Farnham

Federal agents search for indications of 'sexually explicit conduct'

March 24, 2014|Stephanie K. Baer, Tribune reporter

• 

Former Rep. Keith Farnham, 66, announced his resignation Wednesday, one day after he won the Democratic primary, running unopposed. (E. Jason Wambsgans, Chicago Tribune)

Reports that federal agents were looking for evidence of child pornography when they seized computers from the Elgin district office of former state Rep. Keith Farnham shocked local officials who said the lawmaker was well-liked and active in the community.

"I couldn't even fathom it. I was stunned," said former Elgin Mayor Ed Schock, adding that Farnham always worked on the city's behalf.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-24/news/ct-farnham-resignation-met-20140325_1_south-elgin-elgin-dairy-explicit-conduct

Frankfort man arrested on child porn charges - ABC7 NEWS

Mark B. Smith, 53, of Frankfort was charged with six counts of possession of child porn, according to a statement from the Will County State's Attorney's office. (Frankfort police)

TAGS:

local

• Comment Now
• Email
• Print
• Report a typo
• 

Sun-Times Media Wire

October 31, 2013 (CHICAGO) -- A Frankfort man has been accused of downloading and distributing pornographic images of children.

Mark B. Smith, 53, of Frankfort was charged with six counts of possession of child porn, according to a statement from the Will County State's Attorney's office.

Multiple law enforcement agencies executed a search warrant Wednesday at Smith's home in the 400 block of Lincoln Avenue in Frankfort, following a two-month investigation, the statement said.

Smith was downloading and distributing pornographic images of children as young as 9, as well as videos of children involved in sexual encounters with adults, prosecutors allege.

The state's attorney's High Technology Crime Unit, Frankfort police, the Attorney General's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force and the U.S. Secret Service investigated the case.

(Source: Sun-Times Media Wire - Copyright Chicago Sun-Times 2013.)

BB&K Police Bulletin: Warrant to Search Electronic Records - Court Upholds Search of Computer and Storage Devices for Child Pornography - JD Supra

Sex, Sex, Sex -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER JUSTIN EADS - Child Porn , Social Media

As we have alluded to many times here at Illinios Social Media Law, the ease of use and ubiquitous nature of the Internet makes it a happy hunting ground for those seeking child pornography. Social Media makes it a breeze as we see here with the dating site Myspace, which features teens and even younger members and abounds with revealing and suggestive "photographs" of "young ladies". This site presents a cornucopia of potential victims to the aspiring child molester. 

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.

On March 8, 2012, within fourteen days of the jury's verdict being returned, Mr. Eads filed the first of several Motions for a New Trial.  Incriminating evidence had been on the computer, including his Myspace account.  Nathan Asbury, an associate also used the computer and was a key witness in the government's case. Tax, credit card, insurance information were also found on the computer, belonging to Ead's wife. .

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

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

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.

A. Anti-anxiety medication affected Mr. Eads' ability to represent himself at trial.

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.

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

WARNING - GRAPHIC CONTENT: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRISTOPHER H. McCOY - Enticement of a Minor for Sexual Activity

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.

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.

Argued June 13, 2012. Decided August 15, 2012. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
RULE 32.1 CITING JUDICIAL DISPOSITIONS
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_32.1
The Court was correct when it called these crimes horrendous and egregious and the stunning part is that this form of child abuse continues in various parts of the nation, with the ease of use and availability of the Internet making it easy hunting grounds for the child abuser. 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11448060293750053816&q=Facebook&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, last visited September 21, 2013.