United States v. D.M., 12–CR–170.
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Writing for the Court | JACK B. WEINSTEIN |
| Citation | 942 F.Supp.2d 327 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. D.M., Defendant. |
| Docket Number | No. 12–CR–170.,12–CR–170. |
| Decision Date | 03 May 2013 |
942 F.Supp.2d 327
UNITED STATES of America,
v.
D.M., Defendant.
No. 12–CR–170.
United States District Court,
E.D. New York.
May 3, 2013.
[942 F.Supp.2d 328]
Loretta E. Lynch, Esq., United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York by Hilary L. Jager, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, for Government.
David M. Chidekel, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant.
JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge:
+-------------------+
¦Table of Contents ¦
+-------------------¦
¦ ¦
+-------------------+
+--------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Introduction ¦329 ¦
+---+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Facts and Procedural History ¦330 ¦
+--------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Offense ¦330 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦B.¦Pre–Arrest Conduct ¦331 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦C.¦Indictment and Post–Arrest Conduct¦331 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦D.¦Guilty Plea ¦332 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦E.¦Victim Impact ¦333 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦F.¦Sentencing Hearing ¦333 ¦
+----------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+-----------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦III.¦Testimony of Treating Therapists and Experts ¦334 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Expert Testimony at Sentencing Necessary ¦334 ¦
+-----+----+---------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Unanimous Recommendations of Treating Therapists and ¦336 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Experts for Non–Incarceration ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Treating Therapists ¦337 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a)¦Dr. Richard Krueger ¦337 ¦
+----+---+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b)¦Dr. Meg S. Kaplan ¦338 ¦
+----+---+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c)¦Dr. Douglas Martinez ¦339 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Non–Treating Experts ¦340 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a)¦Dr. Cheryl Paridis ¦340 ¦
+----+---+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b)¦Dr. N.G. Berrill and Dr. Jennifer A. McCarthy¦341 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦IV.¦Sentencing Law ¦341 ¦
+---+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦V. ¦Application of Law to Facts ¦343 ¦
+--------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Guidelines Calculation ¦343¦
+---+--+-------------------------------+---¦
¦ ¦B.¦Section 3553(a) Factors ¦344¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Sufficient But Not Greater Than Necessary ¦344 ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Nature and Circumstances of the Offense; History and ¦344 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Characteristics of the Defendant ¦ ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Reflect the Purposes of Sentencing ¦345 ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦4. ¦Kinds of Sentences Available and Sentencing Range ¦347 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Established ¦ ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦5. ¦Guidelines, Policy, and Other Criteria of the ¦347 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sentencing Commission ¦ ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦6. ¦Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities ¦347 ¦
+-----+----+---+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦7. ¦Provide Restitution ¦349 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦C.¦Public Policy ¦349¦
+---+--+-------------------------------+---¦
¦ ¦D.¦Sentence Imposed ¦352¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+-----------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦VI. ¦Conclusion ¦352 ¦
+----+-----------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+-----------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦VII.¦Appendix ¦353 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Professional Background of Experts¦353 ¦
+----------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Richard B. Krueger, M.D. ¦353 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Meg S. Kaplan, Ph.D. ¦353 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Douglas Martinez, Ph.D ¦354 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦4.¦Cheryl Paradis, Psy. D. ¦354 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦5.¦N.G. Berrill, Ph.D. ¦354 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦6.¦Jennifer A. McCarthy, Ph.D. ¦354 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦B. ¦Transcript of Conference of Expert Discussion with the ¦355 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Court ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[942 F.Supp.2d 329]
I. Introduction
This case illustrates the sensible cooperation of prosecutor, defense, experts and the court to save rather than destroy an adolescent found to have used his computer to view child pornography.
This defendant, D.M., was originally charged with receiving and possessing child pornography, requiring a minimum prison sentence of five years. Following a guilty plea, at a hearing on March 22, 2013, defendant, now age 22, was sentenced for one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Imposed was a non-Guidelines sentence of five years' probation with substantial continuing controls and treatment. See Part V.D, infra (outlining specifics of sentence). The reasons for the sentence were orally explained in open court. They are elaborated upon in this memorandum.
Defendant admits to having possessed several hundred still images and video files of children engaging in sexually explicit conduct. When he was an adolescent, he obtained them from the Internet on his home computers. His treating therapists and the parties' experts are in agreement with the court that he suffers from a treatable pornography obsession that began in his early teenage years. There was no evidence that the defendant produced any such materials.
Apart from using a computer, defendant has never acted out against a child or anyone else. Demonstrated by convincing evidence is that he poses no current or future risk to any child or adult. Since his collection of child pornography was discovered by the government, defendant has undergone nearly two years of successful therapeutic treatment. Expert witnesses presented by both the government and defendant recommend that this treatment continue in a non-incarceratory environment and that a term of imprisonment is not required to avoid any danger to the public. Defendant is found by the experts to be fully capable of utilizing therapeutic treatment while under strict control of the court's Probation Department. See Part III.B., infra.
The crime is serious. Punishment is required. Defendant's guilty plea will result in the stain of a federal felony conviction for a sex-related crime. Extensive restrictions affecting where he can live and work, and how he will be controlled, will follow him for many years.
Having been convicted of a crime of possession—and not production, receipt or distribution—of child pornography, no statutory mandatory term of imprisonment is required. Outside the ambit of a mandatory-minimum sentence, a trial court is required to account for a variety of factors
[942 F.Supp.2d 330]
and considerations when meting out a sentence. See18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Part IV, infra. See also Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 34–35, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“[B]efore guideline sentencing became so prevalent[,] .... sentencing judges wisely employed a proportionality principle that took into account all of the justifications for punishment—namely, deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation.”).
The Guidelines developed by United States Sentencing Commission are to be used as a starting point only. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Recommended by the Guidelines is a prison term of seventy-eight to ninety-seven months. See Part V.A, infra.
In addition to consulting the Guidelines, an “individualized assessment” of the situation at-hand “based on the facts presented” is required. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586. That analysis is guided by “[r]easonableness” and an “ individualized application of the statutory sentencing factors.” United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 184 (2d Cir.2010) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 46–47, 128 S.Ct. 586) (emphasis added). Those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. R.V.
...United States v. C.R., 972 F.Supp.2d 457, 459 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (problems with enforcing statutory minimums); United States v. D.M., 942 F.Supp.2d 327 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (sentencing defendant who pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography to five years' probation); United States v......
-
United States v. E.L., 15-CR-137
...(same); United States v. Florez Parra , No. 14–CR–332, 2015 WL 105885, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2015) (same); United States v. D.M. , 942 F.Supp.2d 327, 352 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (sentencing defendant who pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography to five years' probation); R.V. , ......
-
United States v. Austin, 3:16-cr-00068
...it recommends." United States v. Diaz, 720 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1041 (E.D. Wis. 2010) (collecting cases); see also United States v. D.M., 942 F.Supp.2d 327, 351 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (collecting authority for the proposition that child pornography Guidelines are entitled to little deference). That sai......
-
State v. Riggleman, 16-0012
...to the community. Of critical importance is the availability of effective sex offender treatment. See generally, United States v. D.M., 942 F.Supp.2d 327, 334 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ("Particularly useful at sentencing ... is expert testimony. The evaluation of experts in the fields of psychology, ......