United States v. Teague, No. 10-10276 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for both receipt and possession of child pornography, alleging violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court concluded that the conjunctive phrasing of the indictment created the possibility of multiplicitous convictions, and neither the government nor the district court did anything to remove that possibility. Therefore, the district court's entry of judgment on both counts, absent some assurance that the convictions were based on separate conduct, was error. However, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights and, thus, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a criminal judgment in a case in which the defendant, who was convicted of both receipt and possession of child pornography, argued that he is being punished twice for the same conduct in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The panel held that the district court erred by entering judgment on both counts absent some assurance that the convictions were based on separate conduct. In light of the overwhelming and unrebutted evidence of separate conduct, the panel held that the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.
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.