## Facts

- An FBI agent used an undercover computer to access a publicly available peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing program.
- The agent searched for child pornography and connected to an IP address traced to Francesco Caparotta’s residence.
- Caparotta’s computer was configured to allow other P2P users to browse and download files from its shared folder.
- The agent viewed file names consistent with child pornography and downloaded nine images and one video that appeared to be child pornography.
- Agents executed a search warrant at Caparotta’s residence and obtained admissions that he had downloaded child pornography for about fifteen years, including through BearShare.
- Caparotta was shown a list of 105 files available for download from his shared folder and acknowledged he had downloaded them through BearShare and that most contained child pornography.
- A superseding indictment charged Caparotta with ten distribution counts and six receipt counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), plus one possession count under § 2252(a)(4)(B).
- Caparotta moved to dismiss the distribution counts, to inspect grand jury minutes, and to declare unconstitutional the five-year mandatory minimum sentence applicable to receipt.

## Issues

1. Whether knowingly placing child-pornography files in a P2P shared folder accessible to other users constitutes “distribution” under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
2. Whether the defendant showed a particularized need justifying disclosure of grand jury minutes based on alleged instructional error about “distribution.”
3. Whether the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for receipt of child pornography under § 2252(a)(2) violates Due Process or the Eighth Amendment.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss the distribution counts.
- The court denied the motion to inspect or unseal grand jury minutes.
- The court denied the motion to declare the five-year mandatory minimum for receipt unconstitutional.
- All pretrial motions were denied.

## Legal Principles

- When a criminal statute does not define a term, courts apply its ordinary meaning; “distribution” under § 2252(a)(2) includes knowingly making files accessible to others for downloading through a P2P shared folder.
- Proof of “distribution” in this context does not require evidence that the defendant initiated, monitored, or was aware of each particular download; configuring and using a shared folder designed for file-sharing can itself be a distributing act.
- Grand jury proceedings remain secret absent a showing of particularized need; speculative claims of possible misinstruction are insufficient to justify disclosure.
- Mandatory minimum sentencing provisions are reviewed deferentially; a child-pornography mandatory minimum is constitutional where Congress had a rational basis (including reducing demand) and the punishment is not grossly disproportionate.

## Conclusion

The court held that knowingly making child-pornography files available for download through a P2P shared folder can constitute “distribution” under § 2252(a)(2), found no basis to breach grand jury secrecy, and upheld the constitutionality of the statute’s five-year mandatory minimum for receipt.


United States v. Caparotta, 890 F. Supp. 2d 200 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)