March was a relatively quiet month and brought only a few cases with some relevance to our practice:
- United States of America v. Thomas Osadzinski., No. 22-3140: Long story short: Providing tech support to ISIS is not protected by the First Amendment. Osadzinski, a computer nerd obsessed with ISIS, made the poor choice to advertise his views online. A sprawling FBI investigation involving multiple fake ISIS members resulted in this prosecution for providing material support to a terrorist organization. Specifically, the government alleged that Osadzinski had violated the law by designing a computer program to duplicate and disseminate ISIS propaganda in the face of ongoing government crackdowns. Osadzinski makes a number of substantial constitutional challenges, all of which are rejected by the Court.
- United States of America v. Deny Mitrovich, No. 23-1010: Mitrovich was indicted for child pornography possession as a result of an international investigation. New Zealand and Australian agents, working in tandem, appear to have created a computer program enabling them to pierce the anonymity of the “Dark Web” and identify the IP addresses of users exchanging child pornography. They then shared Mitrovich’s IP address with their friends in American law enforcement, leading to this prosecution. Mitrovich tried, and failed to get more information about this software program. However, the United States did not have the information and, more to the point, the foreign governments in question refused to provide it. Thus, while Mitrovich tries to argue that his discovery and due process rights have been violated, the Court holds that there is no obligation to turn over what the government does not have.
- United States v. Shamone White, No. 23-1315: White was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, among other crimes. On appeal, he argues there was insufficient evidence to conclude that he possessed a gun found inside a car in which he was a passenger. However, White’s statements to police which appeared to concede his awareness of the firearm as well as a battery of other circumstantial facts supporting an inference of possession means that the Court rejects these arguments and affirms.
- United States of America v. Anthony Bender, Jr., No. 23-1878: During a traffic stop, Bender fled from police. An officer then witnessed him pull a gun out of his sweatpants and throw it. He was then convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm after a jury trial. On appeal, he first argues that his due process rights were violated by the police failure to preserve a squad car video of the incident. Given the near-insurmountable burden that a defendant must meet to succeed on such a claim, the Court easily rejects Bender’s constitutional challenge. Bender’s second argument, a sufficiency challenge, does not fare much better. Although Bender makes some superficially compelling arguments to impeach the officer’s alleged observation, the standard of review dooms his appeal.
