USA V. MICHAEL PETERSON, No. 15-50203 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-50203 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00228-GW-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL ANTHONY PETERSON, AKA Michael Peterson, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 8, 2017 Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and BERG,** District Judge. 1. Advertising child pornography “to a particular subset of the public” violates 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d). United States v. Grovo, 826 F.3d 1207, 1218 (9th * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Terrence Berg, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. page 2 Cir. 2016). Peterson fails to explain how his actions differed from those in Grovo. See id. at 1211–13, 1217–19. The district court therefore didn’t err in denying Peterson’s motion to acquit on the Section 2251(d) count. 2. To the extent Peterson challenges the jury instruction that defined “advertisement,” there was no error because the instruction “fairly and adequately cover[ed] the issues presented.” See United States v. Soulard, 730 F.2d 1292, 1303 (9th Cir. 1984). 3. The district court was entitled to believe Special Agent Frank Day when he said he didn’t use the hashing tools prohibited by the warrant. See United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Factual findings underlying the denial of the motion are reviewed for clear error.”). 4. Nor did the district court commit plain error by allowing the prosecution to present redacted child pornography images to the jury. The government made a plausible argument as to why it needed to show the images to prove its case, and the court gave a cautionary instruction. See United States v. Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117, 1123–24 (9th Cir. 2008) (jury could be shown a selection of child page 3 pornography images that “were highly probative of the state of mind with which the files were received and possessed”). 5. We grant the government’s pending unopposed motion to file its supplemental excerpt of record under seal. AFFIRMED.
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.
