United States v. Havlik, No. 12-1294 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction of receipt and possession of child pornography. The court held that there was no violation of the Edwards v. Arizona rule where defendant's statements to the interrogating officers were not an unequivocal or unambiguous request for counsel and the police were not required to ask clarifying questions; defendant voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda and his statements to the officers were voluntary; the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that defendant possessed child pornography that had been transported using a means or facility of interstate commerce; and the court declined to address defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which should be raised in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant's statements to interrogating officers were not an unequivocal or unambiguous request for counsel, and the police were not required to ask clarifying questions; defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights was voluntary, and the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress his statements; district court did not err in declining to give an entrapment instruction; evidence was sufficient to prove the jurisdictional element of the child pornography charges against defendant; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be raised in a habeas action.
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.