Unites States v. Lee

603 F.3d 904 (11th Cir. 2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Densley, a federal postal inspector, began investigating online predators. He created a profile on the social networking website hi5 using 'Candi Kane.' Candi was an 'open-minded mother of two beautiful girls,' ages seven and twelve. The profile also identified Candi as a member of online social groups called 'Young Girls and Older Men Loving Each Other,' 'Dady's [sic] Favourite,' and 'Family Love is Best.' D, using the pseudonym 'Doc,' contacted Candi via hi5. D and Candi interacted in two separate online conversations. After numerous conversations about having sex with her virgin daughters, D denied that it was a fantasy and offered to send Candi a photograph of his penis from his cellular telephone to her email address. Candi agreed to accept the photograph, and D then asked--again, unprompted--whether Candi would send him a revealing photograph of her and her daughters. Candi explained that she did not have any revealing photographs but told Lee 'I guess I could take some if you want.' Lee answered, 'I'd like that if it's not too much to ask.' Candi asked Lee what sort of photographs he wanted, and Lee provided detailed specifications: 'I'd like to see opened legs while laying on your back and doggie style with cheeks being held open with your hands.' D then sent a photograph of his penis to Candi's email account. After he confirmed that Candi had received the photograph, D asked whether Candi was going to show the photograph to her daughters. D told Candi that he wanted her to share the photograph with her daughters because 'they are part of this too aren't they?' and 'it's only fair for them to see what they may be getting.' Candi expressed her concern that D's penis was too large for her daughters, and D explained, 'Yeah if I'm going to act like some madman. It's about taking my time and lots of lubrication. . . . This is about helping them into womanhood, not a fu****.' When the package with the pictures was delivered, D was arrested. D was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor, attempted production of child pornography, and knowing receipt of child pornography. D appealed claiming in part that he cannot be convicted without communicating directly with the minors.