United States v. MacEwan
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
445 F.3d 237 (2006)

- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
James MacEwan (defendant) was indicted for downloading child pornography from the Internet in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B). The act prohibited a person from knowingly receiving or distributing materials containing child pornography that had traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. The statute specified that the jurisdictional element requiring travel through interstate or foreign commerce could be satisfied by a computer transmission. At trial, the only contested issue was whether the jurisdictional element of the statute was satisfied. James Janco was the manager of Comcast, MacEwan’s Internet-service provider. Janco testified that there was no way to verify whether the downloaded images traveled through purely intrastate lines or whether they traveled through interstate lines. MacEwan moved for acquittal, arguing that the prosecutor (plaintiff) failed to prove that the child-pornography images traveled outside the state and that the prosecutor therefore did not satisfy the jurisdictional element. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the prosecution satisfied the jurisdictional element by establishing that the images were received through the Internet. MacEwan appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Aldisert, 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.