United States v. Joshua P. Navrestad
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
66 M.J. 262 (2008)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Joshua Navrestad (defendant) had Internet chat sessions over several days with someone Navrestad believed was a 15-year-old boy but was actually a New Hampshire police detective. The detective asked Navrestad for pictures of “guys 10-13.” In response, Navrestad sent the detective a hyperlink to a public Yahoo! briefcase that contained child pornography. Navrestad was charged with distributing child pornography in violation of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. A government systems administrator testified on cross-examination that a hyperlink was an address or a way to display a website that the recipient could click on to go to the site, clicking on a hyperlink did not move any documents to the recipient’s computer, sending a hyperlink was like sending someone an address, and a hyperlink was nothing more than a shortcut to get somewhere. Navrestad was convicted, and the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. On appeal, Navrestad argued that because the hyperlink he sent did not contain data capable of conversion into a visual image of child pornography, sending the hyperlink did not constitute distribution of child pornography.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Erdmann, J.)
Dissent (Effron, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.