United States v. Jarman, No. 11-31217 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals . Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
At issue in this case was 18 U.S.C. 3509(m), which contains specific instructions that mandate government retention of child pornography evidence during criminal proceedings. Section 3509(m)'s retention mandate that child pornography remain in the government's possession applies as long as the material is made "reasonably available" to the defendant for purposes of Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. The statute further states that the material is "reasonably available" as long as the government provides "ample opportunity" for the defendant to inspect, view, and examine the material. The district court in this case found that the government failed to provide Defendant with ample opportunity to examine the child pornography evidence at a government facility. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the government did not provide Defendant with "ample opportunity" to inspect, view, or examine the material at the government facility.
Download PDF
Case: 11-31217 Document: 00511914108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 9, 2012 No. 11-31217 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GEORGE WILLIAM JARMAN, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Before JONES, Chief Judge, and OWEN and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: Congress has spoken clearly in favor of protecting victims of child pornography. See generally Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901 et seq. (2008). One aspect of their solicitude is the statute at issue in this case, 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m), which contains specific instructions that mandate government retention of child pornography evidence during criminal proceedings: (m) Prohibition on reproduction of child pornography.-(1) In any criminal proceeding, any property or material that constitutes child pornography (as defined by section 2256 of this title) shall remain in the care, Case: 11-31217 Document: 00511914108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2012 No. 11-31217 custody, and control of either the Government or the court. (2)(A) Notwithstanding Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court shall deny, in any criminal proceeding, any request by the defendant to copy, photograph, duplicate, or otherwise reproduce any property or material that constitutes child pornography (as defined by section 2256 of this title), so long as the Government makes the property or material reasonably available to the defendant. (B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), property or material shall be deemed to be reasonably available to the defendant if the Government provides ample opportunity for inspection, viewing, and examination at a Government facility of the property or material by the defendant, his or her attorney, and any individual the defendant may seek to qualify to furnish expert testimony at trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m) (emphases added). Because third-party child victim interests are at stake, see New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757-759 (1982), because Congress s imperative is clear and indisputable, and because the government would have no other adequate means to vindicate its interpretation of the statute, a violation of Congress s discovery retention directive might well be amenable to mandamus relief. See United States v. Williams, 400 F.3d 277, 280-81 (5th Cir. 2005). We consider the instant matter under that All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, authority, therefore. Section 3509(m) s retention mandate that child pornography remain in the government s possession applies as long as the material is made reasonably available to the defendant for purposes of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. The statute further states that the material is reasonably available at a government facility as long as the government provides ample opportunity for the defendant to inspect, view, and examine the material. 2 Case: 11-31217 Document: 00511914108 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/09/2012 No. 11-31217 The district court in this case found that the government failed to provide Jarman with ample opportunity to examine the child pornography evidence at a government facility. In arriving at this factual conclusion, see United States v. Dartez, 318 F. App x 308, 310 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (citing United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008)), the district court reviewed an affidavit in which Jarman s computer forensics expert attested that she could not perform all forensic processes because of time limitations and restrictions she encountered. The district court additionally held a one-day hearing in which Jarman s expert was the only witness and she testified that she could not conduct a complete and thorough examination of the hard drives at the provided government facility. Exercising its discretion, the government did not cross-examine the expert regarding her assertions relating to inspection of child pornography evidence in this case, nor did the government call witnesses to describe the feasibility of a full analysis of the child pornography evidence in this case at a government facility, or the extensiveness of inspection provisions free of unnecessary intrusion. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947). In light of the absence of evidence rebutting the affidavit and testimonial assertions of Jarman s expert, we cannot conclude that the district court s factual determination of no ample opportunity at the government facility rose to clear error, which, we have said, might otherwise justify mandamus relief. See Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967) ( only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy ) (citation omitted). We nonetheless emphasize that to the extent that the district court equated inconvenience to the expert or complexity of the case with a failure to make child pornography evidence reasonably available, we reject such rationale. See United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723, 731 (5th Cir. 1995). As stated explicitly by Congress, when the government makes child pornography material available for examination at a 3 Case: 11-31217 Document: 00511914108 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/09/2012 No. 11-31217 government facility, that is reasonable availability, and the only issue to be resolved pretrial relating to § 3509(m) discovery is whether the government inspection conditions imposed on a defendant s access at that facility do not provide[] ample opportunity to inspect, view, or examine the material. The district court s order is AFFIRMED. 4
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.
