United States v. Anderton

Citations: 136 F.3d 747; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3709; 1998 WL 90880Docket: 97-6236

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; March 4, 1998; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case of T. Glenn Anderton and Reba Sue Anderton, who were convicted of several offenses relating to the receipt and possession of child pornography. Mr. Anderton contested the validity of the search warrant that led to the evidence used in his conviction, arguing that postal inspector Beryl Hedrick included false statements in his affidavit, which misled the magistrate judge regarding his personal knowledge of the evidence in the Andertons' home. The court evaluated the suppression of evidence based on a mixed question of law and fact, applying a de novo standard to the legal issues and reviewing factual findings for clear error.

To successfully challenge the warrant, Mr. Anderton needed to demonstrate that the affidavit contained intentionally or recklessly false statements and that, without those statements, probable cause for the warrant was absent. The court found that Mr. Anderton failed to meet this burden, as Inspector Hedrick’s affidavit accurately reflected the investigation's findings, including the Andertons' expressed interest in obtaining child pornography and allegations of Mr. Anderton's prior criminal conduct involving a minor. The court concluded that Inspector Hedrick’s affidavit was based on personal knowledge, interactions with the Andertons, and information from other law enforcement officers, which supported the issuance of the search warrant.

The affidavit revealed that the purpose of the search warrant for the Andertons' residence was not to find the contraband videotape but to locate a check stub or register related to the purchase of the videotape and a collection of sexually oriented photographs and videotapes mentioned in their correspondence. Inspector Hedrick indicated to the magistrate that he would proceed with the search regardless of whether the package was delivered. Mr. Anderton failed to provide evidence that the affidavit was misleading, and the information presented established probable cause for the warrant, leading the district court to correctly deny his motion to suppress.

Mrs. Anderton's motion for judgment of acquittal was also denied, as she argued the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the videotape featured a minor. The evidence was reviewed favorably for the prosecution. Government expert Dr. Marsha Sturdevant testified that the individuals in the tape appeared to be between eleven and fifteen and a half years old, while the Andertons' expert, Dr. Jack Turner, could not determine ages due to the nature of the pornography industry but lacked relevant medical training. The jury, having the discretion to weigh the credibility of expert testimonies, could reasonably find Mrs. Anderton guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both Andertons contested a five-level increase in their offense levels at sentencing, arguing the enhancements were based on activities unrelated to their conviction. Testimonies from multiple minor female witnesses detailed incidents of sexual conduct or attempts at exploitation by the Andertons. The application of the enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines was reviewed de novo.

Section 2G2.2(b)(4) allows for a five-level increase in a defendant's offense level if the court determines that the defendant engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor, defined as two or more instances of such conduct, regardless of the victim. The commentary was amended on November 1, 1996, to clarify that this pattern could include acts not committed during the offense or not resulting in a conviction. Courts in the circuit must consider these amendments even for offenses committed prior to their effective date. The 1996 amendment explicitly allows for the consideration of conduct unrelated to the offense of conviction, which the district court correctly applied in increasing the Andertons' offense levels.

Mr. Anderton challenged the reliability of hearsay evidence regarding his abuse of his stepdaughter used for an upward departure in sentencing. The court reviews such departures for abuse of discretion. Hearsay can be used at sentencing if deemed reliable, and the court made findings on the credibility of the evidence, which were not clearly erroneous. Thus, the district court acted within its discretion.

A clerical error was noted in Mr. Anderton's judgment, citing the wrong statute for his conviction related to possession of sexually explicit materials involving minors. The correct statute is 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B). The court affirmed the judgments and sentences but remanded for correction of this error. Additionally, Mr. Anderton's argument regarding his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was waived on appeal due to not being raised in the district court.