## Facts

- James Ramos was on parole after serving a state sentence for sexually abusing minor girls.
- His parole conditions permitted searches by his parole officer, required truthful answers to supervision questions, and barred him from viewing or possessing pornography.
- Parole authorities added conditions for sex offenders that included polygraph testing (and related monitoring). Ramos eventually agreed to attend a polygraph session.
- During the polygraph-related interview, Ramos admitted he had viewed child pornography on his computer.
- Ramos’s parole officer reported the admission to federal agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
- ICE agents went to Ramos’s home, and Ramos consented to a search of the home and the computer he used.
- Agents seized the computer and conducted a forensic examination.
- The examiner found about 140 child-pornography images in the computer’s temporary internet files (the browser cache), which stores downloaded website content locally to speed loading and permit later viewing.
- The examination also showed that the browser history contained repeated searches associated with child pornography and that Ramos had attempted to delete temporary internet files.
- The United States charged Ramos in federal court with receiving and possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.
- After a jury trial in the Northern District of New York, Ramos was convicted on both counts and sentenced.
- Ramos appealed, arguing (1) his statements during the polygraph process were compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment and (2) evidence of images in temporary internet files was legally and factually insufficient to prove knowing receipt or possession.

## Issues

1. Whether Ramos’s polygraph-related admissions were compelled, such that their use at trial violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ramos knowingly received and knowingly possessed child pornography where the images were found in temporary internet files.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held that Ramos’s statements were not obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment because the parole setting and polygraph paperwork did not amount to an express penalty for invoking the privilege; Ramos was required to claim the privilege if he wished to remain silent.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find knowing receipt and possession, given Ramos’s admissions, the quantity of cached images, the search history, and evidence suggesting efforts to delete the cache.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant claiming unconstitutional compulsion under the Fifth Amendment must show more than generalized pressure to cooperate with supervision; the Constitution is implicated when the government effectively penalizes invocation of the privilege (for example, by threatening revocation because the person claimed the privilege).
- Under *Minnesota v. Murphy* and related supervision cases, a probationer or parolee ordinarily must assert the Fifth Amendment privilege; absent an express penalty for doing so, statements made without invoking the privilege are generally admissible.
- On sufficiency review, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and asks only whether a rational juror could find each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- For child-pornography offenses under § 2252A, “knowing” receipt and possession may be shown through circumstantial proof, including admissions, internet search history, the number and nature of images, and conduct showing awareness of files on the computer.
- The presence of images in temporary internet files does not categorically bar a finding of knowing receipt or possession when other evidence supports an inference that the defendant intentionally sought out the images and exercised control over the computer and its stored content.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed Ramos’s convictions for receiving and possessing child pornography, holding that his parole polygraph-related admissions were not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and that the combination of his admissions, cached images, search history, and deletion activity allowed the jury to find knowing receipt and possession beyond a reasonable doubt.


United States v. Ramos, 685 F.3d 120 (2012)