United States v. Huyck, No. 15-3649 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for multiple crimes related to child pornography. The court concluded that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress where law enforcement officials had probable cause to search defendant's residence because there was a fair probability that they would unearth evidence of the completed crime in defendant's possession at the time of the search; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting "downthemall" exhibits because the evidence was probative of the charged crimes where it indicated that plaintiff's knowledge of the Tor network and specifically how it could be utilized to access hidden child pornography websites; likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Onion Pedo Video Archive evidence; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts that he knowingly received, accessed with intent to view, and possessed child pornography; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Beam, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. There was probable cause, based on information showing defendant had accessed "Pedoboard," a secret or hidden bulletin board trafficking in child pornography, to support the issuance of a warrant for his home and computers; no error in admitting evidence that defendant used a program called "downthemall" to efficiently download content from websites when he was charged with accessing and receiving child pornography; no error in admitting evidence concerning the Onion Pedo Video Archive as it was relevant to defendant's knowledge of the Tor network used to access Pedoboard and his intent to view child pornography; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for receipt, viewing and possessing child pornography; inconsistent responses on the verdict forms did not require the granting of a new trial as the evidence was sufficient on the counts on which defendant was convicted.
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.