Sex offender's sentence is overturned

Sept. 14, 2007

Adapted from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A man who was banned from possessing any kind of pornography after his conviction for traveling across state lines to have relations with a teenager has won his appeal in federal court.

The 52-year-old man will have to be resentenced. A date has not yet been set.

The man, who is currently at a federal correctional institution, pleaded guilty in 2005 to one count.

When he was 46, he began conversing online with a 13-year-old girl, at first telling her he was 19. They continued to talk with each other online and on the telephone for two years.

When the girl turned 15, he asked her to marry him.

It wasn't until he showed up at her home in 2004 that she found out how old he was. Despite that, her parents allowed her to date him. He lived with her and her family for a while then rented an apartment nearby.

Though both he and the girl denied ever having sex, he did admit to having sexual contact with her.

At his sentencing, he was ordered to serve 46 months in prison and register as a sex offender. He never objected to either of those conditions.

However, the judge also imposed a number of restrictions on the man, including that he spend the rest of his life on supervised release and that he be banned from possessing any sexually explicit material.

The man’s defense attorney objected at the time, but the judge overruled him, saying, "It's my view that based on the circumstances of this situation, that such a condition as I have set forth ... is necessary and well within my discretion."

The man appealed, arguing that the restrictions were unreasonable and that the ban on pornography was a violation of his First Amendment rights

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took the case to review for "abuse of discretion."

In addressing the possession of sexually explicit materials, the three-judge panel found that the district court "failed to balance the 'serious First Amendment concerns endemic in such a restriction' against any supposed rehabilitative, deterrent or penological purpose served by the same."

They continued that the ban on all sexually explicit materials would prohibit him from possessing legal pornography, as well.

"Further, and more disturbingly, the restriction arguably also sweeps within its reach materials that may not fairly be deemed pornography under any standard such as completely appropriate descriptions in novels written for the legitimate general literary market of intimate private conduct of married couples."

The prosecution requested lifetime supervised release, saying that it was not convinced he would refrain from reoffending.

"He apparently does have an interest in younger women, and we think that for the safety of society a lifetime supervised release term is appropriate in this case," said an assistant U.S. attorney.

The judge agreed.

But in its 21-page opinion, the appeals court found that conditions of such release "must impose no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary" to deter future criminal conduct.

It went on to say that sentencing guidelines do allow lifetime supervision for the man’s offense, but that the judge "did not provide adequate reasons" for his decision.