5th Circuit: Denial of restitution to child porn victim was not “indisputably wrong” where causation was in question
In re Amy, No. 09-41238, 2009 WL 4928376 (5th Circ. Dec. 22, 2009)
The 5th Circuit held that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas was not “indisputably wrong” (per the requirements for a writ of mandamus) when it denied “Amy,” a victim of child pornography, restitution from a man (Doyle Randall Paroline) convicted of possession of child pornography in which Amy was depicted. The district court held that since 18 U.S.C. § 2259 “requires a showing of proximate cause between the victim’s losses and the defendant’s conduct,” a restitution order cannot “hold an individual liable for a greater amount of losses than those caused by his particular offense of conviction.” In other words, Paroline should not bear the burden of the entire victim restitution given that he neither produced the child pornography, nor was its sole viewer. According to the 5th Circuit, Amy’s argument is that “§ 2259 permits a victim to receive mandatory restitution irrespective of whether the victim’s harm was proximately caused by the defendant.” The 5th Circuit held that, “although this circuit has not yet construed the proximate cause requirement under Section 2259, it is neither clear nor indisputable that Amy’s contentions regarding the statute are correct.”
Judge Dennis dissented, arguing that the district court was clearly in error because Amy was legally a victim of Paroline’s crime and therefore had suffered some losses proximately caused by his crime. As a victim, Amy is entitled to restitution under § 2259 “as determined by the court”:
Petitioner, as the district court’s findings establish, is entitled to restitution under § 2259: petitioner has suffered losses attributable, at least in part, to the defendant’s possession of pornographic images. Based on these findings, the statute required the district court to calculate a dollar amount and impose restitution. Her right to restitution is not barred merely because the precise amount she is owed by Paroline is difficult to determine.
Judge Dennis also cited the potential for restitution in civil litigation.
COMMENTS
