Findlaw: The appellate court, however, agreed with the First and Tenth Circuits that downloading images and videos containing child pornography from a peer-to-peer computer network and storing them in a shared folder accessible to other users on the network amounts to distribution under federal law. | U.S. v. Richardson IV
Emily Bazelon at the New York Times (1/24/13): In October, the Fifth Circuit ruled in Amy’s favor, in a 10 to 5 decision. The court also accepted the theory of joint and several liability, finding that this means of allocating shared responsibility can ensure “that Amy receives the full amount of her losses, to the extent possible, while also ensuring that no defendant bears more responsibility than is required for full restitution.” . . . The Fifth Circuit’s decision creates a clear split among the appeals courts over how to interpret Congress’ provision of restitution for sex-crime victims — a split that only the Supreme Court can resolve. Cassell and Marsh have asked the justices to do that, and the court could hear a restitution case as early as next fall. | In re Amy Unknown, No. 09-41238 (5th Cir. March 22, 2011)
Appellate Daily: Paul Cassell, a former federal judge, represents child pornography victims in a series of federal appellate cases. In October alone, Cassell notched a win and a loss in two circuit courts and argued in another. The case he won created a circuit split about restitution for victims, which the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly be asked to review.
AP: Child pornography victims can recover money from people convicted of viewing their abuse without having to show a link between the crime and their injuries, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. | In re: Amy Unknown (For the reasons above, we reject the approach of our sister circuits and hold that § 2259 imposes no generalized proximate cause requirement before a child pornography victim may recover restitution from a defendant possessing images of her abuse)
Although Mick Haig had obtained their Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses and the names of their internet service providers (“ISPs”), it knew no other information about those 670 persons. Mick Haig sued them as John Doe defendants (“the Does”), alleging copyright infringement. Mick Haig then sought permission to expedite discovery in order to subpoena the Does’ ISPs to disclose their names and contact information before the required Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) discovery conference . . .
ULaw Today: The case involves an important issue of whether child pornography victims can recover all of their losses (e.g., psychological counseling and lost income) from one defendant or must apportion their losses out among multiple defendants. | USA v. Amy Unknown, No. 09-41238 (5th Cir.) Opening Brief
How Appealing quotes and links to the AP and the earlier 5th Circuit opinion: A federal appeals court in New Orleans has agreed to rehear two cases in which a victim of child pornography sought restitution from men who viewed sexually explicit photographs of her on the Internet.” | In re: Amy Unknown.
U.S. v. Wright, No. 09-31215 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2011)
This appeal presents issues related to the amount of restitution that a district court may order a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography to pay to one of the children depicted in the images . . . As explained further below, the recent In re Amy panel opinion rejected the causation arguments made by Wright
Houston Chronicle: “In a decision released Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the video discovered on Alan Ray Steen’s camera was not sexually explicit and didn’t rise to the federal legal definitions that would have made the video warrant the charge.” | United States of America v. Steven, No. 10-50114 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2011)