United States v. Jackson
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
488 F. Supp. 2d (D. Neb. 2007)
Jackson (defendant) had chatted online with a person known as “k8tee4fun”, which he believed to be a 14-year-old girl. K8tee4fun was in fact an agent of the Postal Investigation Service, David Margritz. Margritz set up a meeting with Jackson at a local park. On August 14, 2001, Jackson drove past with his daughter, but did not stop. Officers then went to Jackson’s home and arrested him. Assistant United States Attorney Robert Kokrdra was initially assigned to the case, but did not do anything on it for two years before his retirement. Another attorney was then assigned to the case. On February 24, 2005, a grand jury indicted Jackson for using his computer to knowingly attempt to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity. Jackson sought a motion in limine to prohibit the government from introducing a cut-and-paste document of his online chat conversations with Margritz. At the hearing, Margritz testified that there were no original documents of the chat conversation with Jackson because his computer was wiped clean in a routine upgrade a few years after the investigation. Margritz did, however, cut and paste the conversation from the chat window into a Word document. However, he admitted that some offline messages were not captured in the Word document. Margritz made two version of the cut-and-paste document – one with just the chat conversation and one with Margritz’s comments and notes. The former document was also lost during the computer upgrade. The prosecution sought to introduce the version with Margritz’s notes. Jackson brought in a computer forensics expert, Kevin Peden, who testified that a bit-stream image of the chat was the best way to confirm the chat. Peden testified that cutting and pasting the chat was the least effective way of capturing the chat. Jackson contended that the cut-and-paste document did not accurately reflect the conversation between him and Margritz. Jackson claimed that he intended to introduce the 14-year-old girl to his grandniece and that his intentions were reflected in offline messages not captured in the cut-and-paste document.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Bataillon, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.