United States v. Schwarte, No. 09-3670 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of one count of attempted sexual exploitation of children, one count of receipt of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and one count of possession of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. At issue was whether the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence and whether the evidence was sufficient to convict him on each count. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding, after an evidentiary hearing, that the triggering condition had occurred where the anticipatory search warrant defined the triggering condition as the controlled delivery of the package containing child pornography and where the uncontradicted testimony demonstrated that the delivery occurred. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's three convictions. The court further held that because defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim involved a determination of whether counsel was reasonable in his investigation, the record was not sufficiently developed for proper review on direct appeal and it was not "readily apparent" from the record that counsel was ineffective. Accordingly, the court declined to consider defendant's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel and the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Triggering event for the anticipatory search warrant occurred, and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the search; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for attempted sexual exploitation of a child and for receipt and possession of child pornography; the record regarding defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not fully developed, and the claim should be brought in a Section 2255 proceeding.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.