Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-wvnd-1_23-cr-00069-1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. CRIMINAL NO. 1:23-CR-69
(KLEEH)
CHRISTOPHER HARP,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
Pursuant to Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, Defendant has moved for a judgment of acquittal or, in
the alternative, a new trial [ECF No. 84]. The Government filed
a response in opposition [ECF No. 85]. For the reasons discussed
herein, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 7, 2023, the grand jury returned a four-count
indictment charging Defendant Christopher Harp (“Defendant”) in
Counts One through Three with Receipt of Child Pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and 2252A(b)(1), and in
Count Four with Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 2252A(b)(2).
1 Following a three-
1 Count One asserts that the receipt occurred on or about April 4,
2019. Count Two asserts that the receipt occurred on or about
September 18, 2020. Count Three asserts that the receipt occurred
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 33 PageID #:
<pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
2
day trial, the jury found Defendant guilty on all four counts. On
April 25, 2024, prior to the jury’s deliberations and at the close
of the Government’s case-in-chief, Defendant, by counsel, moved
for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. The Court denied the motion. Defendant
filed the pending motion on June 13, 2024, and the Government filed
its response on July 3, 2024.
II. BACKGROUND
At trial, Defendant conceded that child pornography was on
the laptop in question (Government Exhibit 1) but denied any
knowledge of how it got there. He presented an alibi defense,
arguing that he was not home when the child pornography was
downloaded, viewed, and deleted. Throughout the trial, Defendant
also posited the theory that his brother, Jeremy Harp, was
responsible for downloading, viewing, and deleting the child
pornography found on the laptop.
The Government called Special Agent Ed Ryan (“Agent Ryan”)
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) as its first
witness. Agent Ryan testified that through software utilized by
the FBI, it was discovered that child pornography was being made
available for sharing from a specific computer in Monongalia
on or about September 21, 2020. Count Four asserts that the
possession occurred on or about September 25, 2020.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 33 PageID #:
<pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
3
County, West Virginia, through a peer-to-peer network called
“Shareaza.” Trial Tr., Day 1, at 31:19–36:24. Agent Ryan linked
the specific computer, between December 2018 and September 2020,
to an IP address at 904 Bloody Run Road, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Id. at 60:20–25; 70:15–22. The subscriber’s name was Christopher
Harp. Id.; Government Exhibits 5A and 5B. Agent Ryan also linked
the specific computer, prior to June 2018, to an IP address at 944
Bloody Run Road, Morgantown, West Virginia. Trial Tr., Day 1, at
50:5–7; Government Exhibit 4. The subscriber’s name was Robert
Westwood. Government Exhibit 4. Agent Ryan testified that
Government Exhibits 9A, 9B, and 9C were Child Protection System
logs that documented what the specific computer offered for sharing
on April 4, 2019, September 18, 2020, and September 21, 2020.
Trial Tr., Day 1, at 61:5–63:20. Agent Ryan testified that
downloading from Shareaza can be done at scheduled times, but he
did not offer evidence that any such scheduled downloads took place
in this case. Id. at 37:20–38:19.
Agent Ryan provided his information to FBI Special Agent Corey
Thigpen (“Agent Thigpen”). Agent Thigpen applied for and obtained
a search warrant for 904 Bloody Run Road. Id. at 97:3–8. On the
morning of September 25, 2020, federal agents and local police
executed the search warrant. Id. at 98:17–21; 115:12–20. Multiple
devices were seized from the home, including, most relevant here,
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 33 PageID #:
<pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
4
an HP laptop computer found in the loft area (the “laptop”)
(Government Exhibit 1) and a thumb drive located in the craft room
(the “thumb drive”) (Government Exhibit 2). Id. at 116:6–118:1.
Agent Thigpen testified that as he went through the residence, he
saw no indicia of occupancy by any person other than Defendant,
his wife Amy Harp, and their child. Id. at 124:14–21.
Detective Friend with the Monongalia County Sheriff’s Office
testified that he participated in the search of the residence and
found the laptop in the loft area of the home, on the floor, next
to a chair, in what appeared to be Defendant’s office area. Id.
at 116:9–13; 151:15–152:19. He testified that the laptop did not
appear to be hidden, and it looked to be between the chair and the
wall. Id. The laptop appeared to be plugged in. See Government
Exhibit 7H. In the loft, law enforcement also found what appeared
to be Defendant’s work computer and some work-related paperwork.
Trial Tr., Day 1, at 120:14–121:7. Agent Thigpen testified that
while the search was being conducted, Defendant repeatedly looked
up toward the loft. Id. at 114:17–115:5.
Peter Hammer (“Hammer”) did a forensic review of
approximately 30 devices seized from the home. Trial Tr., Day 2,
at 10:20–24. Hammer has since retired, but he previously worked
as a forensic analyst and a system administrator with the FBI.
Id. at 6:2–23. Hammer submitted a report of his findings in
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 4 of 33 PageID #:
<pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
5
February 2022. Id. at 21:17–19. At trial, Hammer was found to be
an expert in computer forensics. Id. at 8:1–14.
Hammer testified that he made an exact duplicate of the
laptop’s hard drive and examined it. Id. at 11:18–12:11. He
testified that the laptop was operating on Windows Vista, which is
an “old” version of Microsoft. Id. at 13:1–5; 72:15–19. He
observed video files in the laptop’s recycle bin that contained
suspected child pornography. Id. at 14:4–10. The videos were
accessible and playable without any special knowledge or skill. 2
Id. at 16:4–18.
Hammer conducted further analysis of the laptop to see if it
was possible to determine who had used the laptop for what. Id.
at 21:7–15. He learned that the operating system was installed in
April 2011 and that one main account was used. Id. at 21:20–
22:16. Hammer located various “restore points” in the laptop.
Id. at 22:17–25. He testified that a restore point is an earlier
version of a computer’s operating system. Id. at 23:1–16. Restore
points are sometimes created when a computer runs a software
2 Hammer testified that when a file is downloaded, the hard drive
contains data about how and when the file arrived there. Trial
Tr., Day 2, at 17:5–18. Typically, when a file is deleted, the
file goes to the recycle bin, where the original name and other
information is saved by the computer, so that if someone opens the
recycle bin and wants to restore the item, the computer will send
it back to the place where it was originally located. Id. at
18:10–19:22.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 5 of 33 PageID #:
<pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
6
update. Id. Essentially, a restore point operates as a backup of
the files that have been saved, deleted, moved, or altered since
the computer’s last backup. Id. It saves the system as it was at
the time of the update, in case something goes wrong with a future
update and a return to the previous version is needed. Id.
Hammer then reviewed the files in the restore points. Hammer
testified that the restore points showed a history of downloading
and deleting child pornography, going back to dates preceding the
charges in the Indictment.
3 The oldest restore point available
was from July 8, 2016. Id. at 26:2–7. On that restore point,
Hammer found that someone with the usernames “charp51” and
“chrisharp51” had logged into various accounts on the laptop. Id.
at 26:2–23. He found that files containing the phrase “PTHC”4 were
accessed between June 2012 and September 2012. Id. at 27:13–23.
Hammer found a video from a well-known child pornography series in
the file registry, which was downloaded in July 2013. Id. at
27:24–28:15. He testified that the next restore point showing
indicia of child pornography was from July 28, 2016. Id. at 30:10–
31:9. The restore point revealed that someone had used Shareaza
3 The Court ruled that the historical evidence was admissible under
Rules 404(b) and 414 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See ECF
No. 60.
4 Agent Ryan testified that “PTHC” means “pre-teen hard core.”
Trial Tr., Day 1, at 53:18–20.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 6 of 33 PageID #:
<pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
7
to partially download eight files of suspected child pornography
and fully download five video files of suspected child pornography.
Id. The restore point reflected that the terms “pedomom”
5 and
“pthc” were utilized and added to the search history. Id.
Hammer testified that the next restore point was from July
29, 2016, and it reflected that the files from July 28, 2016, had
been marked for deletion. Id. at 31:20–32:6. One new term had
been added to the Shareaza search terms: “pthc mom.” Id. at 32:10–
13. Hammer testified that the next restore point was from August
3, 2016, and it showed that two files containing suspected child
pornography were partially downloaded and a third was fully
downloaded. Id. at 33:2–13. He testified that the next restore
point was from August 5, 2016, which showed that the files from
August 3, 2016, had been marked for deletion. Id. at 33:22–34:7.
Three new terms had been added to the Shareaza search history:
“pae,” “Vicky,”6 and “Private pae 2.” Id. at 34:12–17.
Hammer testified that there were two restore points from
August 16, 2016. Id. at 35:11–13. The first restore point showed
that four files were partially downloaded and one file was fully
5 Agent Thigpen testified that “pedo” refers to “pedophile” or
“pedophilia,” and “pedomom” refers to pedophilia involving a
mother. Trial Tr., Day 2, at 124:18–22.
6 Agent Ryan testified about an especially graphic and well-known
child pornography video known as the “Vicky series.” Trial Tr.,
Day 1, at 68:17–69:1.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 7 of 33 PageID #:
<pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
8
downloaded, and the file names indicated potential child
pornography. Id. at 36:4–37:5. The first restore point showed
that additional search terms were added to the Shareaza search
history: “cbaby” and “a family affair.” Id. at 36:22–37:1. The
second restore point indicated that a video file shown as
downloaded or partially downloaded in the first restore point had
been marked for deletion. Id at 37:6–16.
Hammer testified that the next two restore points were from
April 24, 2018. Id. at 37:17–39:11. On that day, there were an
additional four partial downloads of potential child pornography.
Id. at 38:19–24. Hammer also testified that a restore point from
April 24, 2018, showed “Charp51” logging onto governmentjobs.com
that day. Id. at 38:7–15. It also showed that “charp” logged
onto stradlink.stradenergy.com that day. Id. The restore points
from April 24, 2018, showed that a new version of Shareaza was
downloaded that day. Id. at 39:4–8. Hammer then testified about
a restore point from April 30, 2018. Id. at 39:21. On that day,
the recycle bin contained 24 potential child pornography videos.
Id. at 40:7–11. The Shareaza search terms included “pedomom boy,”
“pedomom,” and “a family affair.” Id. at 41:7–10.
Hammer then testified about a restore point from April 4,
2019. Id. at 41:11–12. The restore point showed 15 downloaded
video files of potential child pornography on the laptop. Id. at
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 8 of 33 PageID #:
<pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
9
41:16–19. The recycle bin contained 24 potential child pornography
videos. Id. at 41:20–23. The Shareaza search history contained
12 search terms, including the following new terms: “PTHC car,”
“PTHC family,” “Vicky,” “PTHC teen,” “PTHC,” “Kylie talk,”
“Kylie,” “QQAAZZ,” and “PTHC mom.” Id. at 42:11–14; 45:23. Hammer
indicated that the restore point from April 4, 2019, was the final
point preceding the “current restore point.” Id. at 45:23–25.
The current restore point showed that 15 potential child
pornography video downloads and numerous partial downloads had
been marked as deleted. Id. at 45:8–14. Hammer testified that he
reviewed the Shareaza search term list contained in the current
restore point and found that a new search term had been added in
Shareaza: “Vicky American Pie.” Id. at 45:23–25. Hammer
explained that he found that the video player used by the laptop
had a MRU (“Most Recently Used”) video list. Id. at 55:6–22. He
provided the MRU list to Agent Thigpen, in addition to all of the
files and information contained in the restore points. Id. at
19:23–20:3. Hammer stated that in reviewing the current files and
the files in the restore points, he found evidence of only two
individuals utilizing the laptop: Christopher Harp and Amy
Westwood (née Harp). Id. at 47:8–12. Hammer observed that the
log-in count for each restore point, which showed how many times
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 9 of 33 PageID #:
<pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
10
the system had been signed into, typically went up by one for each
restore point. Id. at 29:8–39:20.
Hammer testified that in reviewing the evidence seized in
this case, he also found that the thumb drive (Government Exhibit
2) contained evidence related to possession of child pornography.
7
Id. at 49:7–50:11. The thumb drive, when reviewed with software
used by the FBI, showed that at least two videos of suspected child
pornography were placed on the thumb drive between November 2009
and January 2010. Id. at 51:14–52:6. The files themselves are no
longer on the thumb drive. Id. at 61:7–20. Hammer testified that
other thumb drive documents appeared to reference Defendant and
his college exams/classes, and the documents were created within
one or two months of the child pornography files. Id. at 52:12–
19; 119:21–120:22. Hammer did not notice any documents on the
thumb drive that were attributable to other users. Id. at 113:22–
25. He testified that the thumb drive was used with the laptop at
some point. Id. at 53:3–7. On cross examination, Hammer stated
that the only account that appeared to have been used for the
laptop’s operating system was the administrative account, and a
guest account had not been used. Id. at 63:16–64:1. Hammer also
7 The Court also ruled, prior to trial, that the historical evidence
on the thumb drive was admissible pursuant to Rules 404(b) and 414
of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See ECF No. 60.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 10 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
11
testified on cross examination that the laptop had not been
fingerprinted. Id. at 66:21–23.
Hammer testified that he did not know if downloads could be
scheduled through Shareaza, but he knew that in order for child
pornography to be deleted, the operator of the computer would need
to be present at the computer. Id. at 62:17–63:2. During the
times when child pornography was downloaded, viewed, and deleted,
Hammer found no other contemporaneous searches or work being
performed on the laptop that would indicate who was actually
operating the laptop during those times. Id. at 76:21–25.
Agent Thigpen testified that he prepared Government Exhibits
8A through 8O, which were clips of videos found in the laptop’s
current recycle bin. Id. at 126:3–7. He testified that Government
Exhibits 8A through 8L depicted adults engaging in sexual activity
with children. There is no dispute in this case that the videos
constitute child pornography. Agent Thigpen testified that
Government Exhibits 8M, 8N, and 8O were “bait files.” He testified
that the bait files depict a foreign law enforcement official
explaining to the viewer that the viewer has downloaded a file
from a police computer, and law enforcement may be aware of the
viewer’s location. Id. at 142:19–143:3. With respect to
Government Exhibits 8A through 8O, Agent Thigpen testified that
the video files had one or more words in the titles that were also
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 11 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
12
in Shareaza’s saved search terms. Id. at 145:2–8. Agent Thigpen
reviewed the child pornography found in the historical restore
points and concluded that the pornography was of the same type or
genre as the child pornography found or referenced in Government
Exhibits 8A through 8O. Id. at 148:9–149:4. He testified that
the content of all of the videos included “small children,
incest/family-related, pedophilia-type videos.” Id. at 148:25–
149:4.
The following evidence was established: the videos of child
pornography in Government Exhibits 8A, 8B, and 8C were downloaded
on April 4, 2019, between 7:55 a.m. and 7:56 a.m., and the file
names were included in Government Exhibit 9A (Count One); the
videos of child pornography in Government Exhibits 8D, 8E, and 8F
were downloaded on September 18, 2020, between 3:12 p.m. and 3:19
p.m., and the file names were included in Government Exhibit 9B
(Count Two); and the videos of child pornography in Government
Exhibits 8G, 8H, and 8I were downloaded on September 21, 2020,
between 11:59 a.m. and 12:34 p.m., and the file names were included
in Government Exhibit 9C (Count Three).
Aside from analyzing the devices taken from the Harps’ home
on September 25, 2020, no other investigation was performed. Agent
Thigpen testified that no one else, including any neighbors or
other family members who lived in the area, was questioned as to
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 12 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
13
who had access to the Harps’ home. Trial Tr., Day 1, at 144:12–
145:21. He also testified that no fingerprint analysis was
performed on any of the seized devices. Id. at 129:24–130:2. No
analysis of Defendant’s cell phone was performed to determine
whether Defendant was at home during the alleged downloading,
viewing, or deleting of child pornography. Id. at 77:3–19.
Amy Harp, Defendant’s wife, testified at trial for the
defense. She testified that she and Defendant met in June 2012
and were married in 2015. Trial Tr., Day 2, at 157:9–10; 188:3–
5. With respect to Count One, Amy testified that Defendant was
not home on the morning of April 4, 2019, because he was working
for Strad in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, and he typically left for
work between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m. Id. at 169:15–171:2. She
testified that Defendant had a job interview in Pittsburgh that
day. Id. On cross examination, she claimed to specifically
remember that morning because she took pictures of her daughter,
but she did not remember whether Jeremy Harp was at her home that
day. Id. at 194:10–14; 195:4–13.
With respect to Count Two, Amy Harp testified that she was
not home on the afternoon of September 18, 2020, but Defendant, at
that time, was working for her father, remodeling a home for Dr.
Fogarty. Id. at 171:3–172:13; 174:7–14. She testified that
Defendant and her father would typically leave for work between
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 13 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
14
9:00 and 10:00 a.m. and would typically work until 5:00 or 6:00
p.m. Id. at 173:11–16. She did not know whether Jeremy was at
her house that day, but she testified that Jeremy was not at her
house when she returned home. Id. at 197:9–13.
With respect to Count Three, Amy Harp testified that she and
Defendant purchased a car together at Dan Cava’s in White Hall,
West Virginia, on September 21, 2020. Id. at 174:18–175:2. She
testified that they arrived at the dealership around 9:00 a.m.
Id. at 175:8–10. She testified that Dan Cava’s is 30 minutes from
her house when driving on the interstate. Id. at 197:18–20. She
testified that although she texted her mother around 10:00 a.m.
that they had the car, they did not leave the dealership until
around 12:00 p.m. Id. at 177:14–16. She testified that she and
Defendant did not arrive at home until around 1:00 p.m. because
they took back roads and stopped twice so that she could use the
restroom (she was pregnant at the time). Id. at 177:18–24. She
testified that she dropped off Defendant at 1:00, went to show her
mother the car, and then went to a doctor’s appointment by herself,
arriving at the appointment at 1:30 p.m. Id. at 178:1–11; 200:14–
24. Amy testified that she did not see Jeremy at her home when
she dropped off Defendant. Id. at 202:1–6. She also testified
that she received a text from Sirius XM at 12:50 p.m., and she was
already home by that time. Id. at 214:16–22.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 14 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
15
Amy testified that Jeremy, among others, had access to her
home in 2019 and 2020 via the garage code. Id. at 178:12–21. She
testified that Jeremy was knowledgeable about computers. Id. at
182:14–25. Amy testified that Jeremy helped the Harps move into
her parents’ home in July and August 2016, and then Jeremy helped
the Harps move into their own home in 2018. Id. at 210:8–24. She
testified that Jeremy was homeless in 2018 and 2019 and stayed at
the Harps’ home sometimes. Id. at 178:22–179:4.
Amy testified about other individuals who had access to the
Harps’ home when she and Defendant were not present. Id. at
178:12–15. She also testified that the password to the laptop was
available on a post-it note on a computer tablet in the home. Id.
at 183:24–184:5. Amy testified that she had used the laptop on
many occasions, that the laptop was used in different areas of the
home, and that she had never seen any child pornography on it.
Id. at 160:22–161:13; 186:22–187:1. She testified that she never
saw an icon or link that would indicate that any peer-to-peer
network had been installed on the laptop. Id. at 187:2–11.
Defense witness Rebecca Bodkin testified that she is Amy
Harp’s sister and lives very close to the Harps’ home. Id. at
223:3–6. Rebecca Bodkin testified that numerous individuals had
access to the Harps’ home through the garage door code, including
Rebecca, her husband, her parents, and her brother while he was
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 15 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
16
alive. Id. at 226:3–11. She testified that Jeremy had lived with
the Harps for a period of time and would show up to the home when
the Harps were not present. Id. at 226:12–227:9. She also
testified that Defendant worked with her father in September 2020,
remodeling a home for Dr. Fogarty, but she had no personal
knowledge of whether Defendant was at the job site on September
18, 2020. Id. at 228:1–229:6.
Defense witness Brenda Westwood testified that she is Amy’s
mother (Defendant’s mother-in-law). Id. at 232:8–9. She testified
that Defendant worked with her late husband remodeling a home for
Dr. Fogarty in 2020, but she did not have personal knowledge of
whether Defendant was at the site on September 18, 2020. Id. at
236:5–237:6. She testified that Jeremy had helped the Harps move
into her own home and helped the Harps move out in 2018. Id. at
233:15–234:12. She testified to seeing Jeremy at the Harps’ home
when no one else was there, but she could not say when it was.
Id. at 234:23–235:14. She testified that she told Amy about it.
Id. She also testified regarding a number of individuals who had
access to the Harps’ home via the garage code. Id. at 235:19–25.
She testified that on September 21, 2020, Amy arrived at her
(Brenda’s) house around 12:00 p.m. in her new vehicle without
Defendant. Id. at 237:15–25. She testified that she (Brenda)
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 16 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
17
never gave Jeremy the Wi-Fi password for her home. Id. at 240:20–
22.
Defense witness Beverly Sheets testified that she is a long-
time friend and neighbor of the Westwood family. Id. at 243:12–
244:4. She testified that she had access to the Harps’ home and
would sometimes watch the Harps’ pets while they were away. Id.
at 246:4–13. She testified that Amy told her that she did not
want Jeremy in her home. Id. at 245:4–8. On one occasion, Beverly
believed that she saw Jeremy coming down the Harps’ driveway. Id.
at 245:14–21. She testified that she did not know when that
occurred, but she told Amy about it. Id. at 246:1–3.
Defendant testified during trial as well. He denied any
knowledge of child pornography on the laptop or the thumb drive.
Trial Tr., Day 3, at 6:18–22; 23:21–24:4. He testified that he
purchased the laptop as a used laptop in 2011, and Jeremy and his
father helped him set it up. Id. at 6:23–7:10. He testified that
Jeremy set up the password on it, and the password was never
changed. Id. at 8:6–1.
Defendant stated that the thumb drive was his while he was in
school, and he was living with his mother, his father, and Jeremy
at the time. Id. at 6:2–14. He testified that Jeremy was a
computer expert who could log onto Wi-Fi systems without passwords
and knew how to “hack.” Id. at 7:21–8:5. He testified that Jeremy
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 17 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
18
stayed at Defendant’s home while he and Amy were moving, and Jeremy
would have had access to the laptop. Id. at 11:1–12:5.
With respect to Count One, Defendant testified that on April
4, 2019, he was not home because went to work and then to a job
interview in Pittsburgh. Id. at 13:11–14. With respect to Count
Two, he testified that on September 18, 2020, he was working for
his father-in-law at a job site in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia.
Id. at 16:17–25. With respect to Count Three, Defendant testified
that on September 21, 2020, he purchased a car at Dan Cava’s with
Amy. Id. at 18:2–11. He testified that he and Amy did not leave
the dealership until 12:00 p.m. because they were waiting for
insurance information. Id. at 18:18–24. Defendant testified that
no one was at his home when he returned around 1:00 p.m., but he
does not know who was in his home while he was gone. Id. at 55:1–
9.
Defendant testified that Jeremy lived with him in 2018 and
2019 and would show up randomly. Id. at 19:3–15. He stated that
Jeremy had access to the home via the punch code and could have
gone inside without Defendant’s knowledge. Id. at 19:16–21. He
testified that at one point, Jeremy listed 904 Bloody Run Road as
his residence. Id. at 19:22–24. He testified that the last time
Jeremy was at his home, that he knew of, was in August 2020. Id.
at 42:9–20. Despite testifying that Defendant and Amy were
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 18 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
19
concerned about Jeremy visiting their home without permission,
Defendant testified that he and Amy did not change the locks,
change the garage door, or begin locking the mudroom door. Id. at
49:12–23. He also testified that Amy never told the FBI about
Jeremy. Id. at 31:25–32:4.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
that “[a]fter the government closes its evidence or after the close
of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter
a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a conviction.” A defendant who challenges
the sufficiency of the evidence under Rule 29 faces an “imposing
burden.” United States v. Martin, 523 F.3d 281, 288 (4th Cir.
2008) (citing United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th
Cir. 1997)). He must establish that “the record demonstrates a
lack of evidence from which a jury could find guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. at 287–88 (citing United States v. Burgos,
94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). When reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction,
courts are “limited to considering whether there is substantial
evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to
support it.” Beidler, 110 F.3d at 1067 (citation and quotation
marks omitted).
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 19 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
20
The court must uphold the jury’s verdict if, when viewed in
the light most favorable to the government, there is sufficient
evidence from which “any rational trier of fact could find the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United
States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). It is the
jury, and not the court, who “weighs the credibility of the
evidence and resolves any conflicts in the evidence presented.”
Beidler, 110 F.3d at 1067 (citation omitted). Reversal of a jury’s
verdict of guilty is reserved for cases “where the prosecution’s
failure is clear.” Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978).
Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits
the Court to vacate a criminal conviction and “grant a new trial
if the interest of justice so requires.” However, “a trial court
should exercise its discretion to award a new trial sparingly, and
a jury verdict is not to be overturned except in the rare
circumstance when the evidence weighs heavily against it.” United
States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 217 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation and
quotation marks omitted).
IV. DISCUSSION
Defendant asserts that the Government presented insufficient
evidence to establish Defendant’s knowledge of the presence of
child pornography on the laptop. The Court disagrees.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 20 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
21
With respect to Counts One through Three, the Court instructed
the jury as follows:
The defendant, Christopher Harp, is charged in
Counts One through Three of the Indictment
with Receipt of Child Pornography, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 2252A(a)(2)(A) and 2252A(b)(1).
Title 18, United States Code, Section
2252A(a)(2) makes it a crime to transport in
interstate commerce, receive, or distribute,
sell or possess with intent to sell child
pornography.
For you to find the defendant guilty, the
government must prove each of the following
beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) that the defendant knowingly received
(2) any child pornography, or any other
material that contained child pornography
(3) using any means or facility of interstate
or foreign commerce or that has been mailed,
or has been shipped or transported in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce by
any means, including by computer. The
government is required to prove that the
defendant knew that the visual depiction
portrayed a person under the age of 18 and
that the minor was engaged in sexually
explicit conduct.
ECF No. 75 at 14–15. With respect to Count Four, the Court
instructed the jury as follows:
The defendant, Christopher Harp, is charged in
Count Four of the Indictment with Possession
of Child Pornography, in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Sections
2252A(a)(5)(B) and2252A(b)(2). Title 18,
United States Code, Section 2252A(a)(5)(B)
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 21 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
22
makes it a crime to transport in interstate
commerce, receive, or distribute, sell or
possess with intent to sell child pornography.
For you to find the defendant guilty, the
government must prove each of the following
beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) that the defendant knowingly possessed or
accessed with intent to view a computer disk
or any other material that contained an image
of child pornography
(2) that had been mailed, or shipped or
transported using any means or facility of
interstate or foreign commerce or in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce by
any means, including by computer, or was
produced using materials that had been mailed,
or shipped or transported in or affecting
interstate or foreign commerce by any means,
including by computer,
(3) which involved a pre-pubescent minor and
a minor who had not attained 12 years of age.
The government is required to prove that the
defendant knew that the visual depiction
portrayed a person under the ae of 12 and that
the minor was engaged in sexually explicit
conduct
Id. at 15–16.
The Court instructed the jury as to the following with respect
to proving knowledge or intent:
The intent of a person or the knowledge that
a person possesses at any given time may not
ordinarily be proved directly because there is
no way of directly scrutinizing the workings
of the human mind. In determining the issue of
what a person knew or what a person intended
at a particular time, you may consider any
statements made or acts done or omitted by
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 22 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
23
that person and all other facts and
circumstances received in evidence which may
aid in your determination of that person’s
knowledge or intent.
As to this case, the United States must show
that the defendant had knowledge of the
general nature of the contents of the images.
Although the defendant need not have specific
knowledge as to the sexual acts depicted in
the images, the defendant must have had
knowledge or reason to know, or an awareness
or notice, or a belief or ground for belief
warranting further inspection or inquiry, that
the images visually depict sexually explicit
conduct. Similarly, it is not necessary that
the defendant have specific knowledge of the
identity or precise age of the person
depicted. It is sufficient for Counts One
through Three if he knows or is aware that the
image depicts a child under the age of 18, and
for Count Four, if he knows or is aware that
the image depicts a child under the age of 12.
The defendant’s knowledge may be shown by
direct or circumstantial evidence, or both.
Eyewitness testimony of the defendant’s
perusal of the images is not necessary to
prove his awareness of the contents; the
circumstances may warrant the inference that
the was aware of what the image depicts.
You may infer, but you are certainly not
required to infer, that a person intends the
natural and probable consequences of acts
knowingly done or knowingly omitted. It is
entirely up to you, however, to decide what
facts to find from the evidence received
during this trial.
Furthermore, the defendant’s belief as to the
legality or illegality of the images is
irrelevant. The United States need not prove
that the defendant knew that the images
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 23 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
24
themselves or the portrayals in them were
illegal.
Id. at 18–20. With respect to “prior acts,” the Court instructed
the jury as follows:
You have heard evidence that the defendant may
have previously committed other acts which may
constitute receipt of child pornography. The
defendant is not charged with these other
offenses. You may consider this evidence only
if you unanimously find it is more likely true
than not true. You decide that by considering
all of the evidence and deciding what evidence
is more believable. This is a lower standard
than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you find that these offenses have not been
proved, you must disregard them. If you find
that these offenses have been proved, you may
consider them to help you decide any matter to
which they are relevant. You should give them
the weight and value you believe they are
entitled to receive. You may consider the
evidence of such other acts for its tendency,
if any, to show the defendant’s propensity to
engage in the acts charged in the Indictment,
to determine the defendant’s intent, to
determine the identity of the person who
committed the acts charged in the Indictment,
to determine the defendant’s opportunity to
commit the acts charged in the Indictment, and
to rebut the contention of the defendant that
his participation in the offenses charged in
the Indictment was the result of accident,
mistake, or to rebut the issue of the
defendant’s alibi.
Remember, the defendant is on trial only for
the crimes charged in the Indictment. You may
not convict a person simply because you
believe he may have committed similar acts in
the past. Bear in mind at all times the
Government has the burden of proving that the
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 24 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
25
defendant committed each of the elements of
the offenses charged in the Indictment.
Id. at 10–11.
The evidence presented during trial was sufficient for a
rational jury to determine that the receipt and possession of child
pornography was knowing. The Government presented evidence that
the laptop was in Defendant’s office area, near Defendant’s work
computer and paperwork, plugged in, on the date when the search
occurred. The evidence showed that Defendant was the predominant
user of the laptop for nearly ten years and that Amy Harp used it
on occasion. There was no indication in the laptop that anyone
other than Defendant or Amy Harp used the laptop to log into
websites or email. The laptop was in Defendant’s control and
custody.
As the Court instructed the jury, knowledge is not something
that is easily provable by direct evidence, but it can be
determined from other circumstances. In this case, the Government
relied on other circumstances to prove knowledge. For instance,
Defendant kept an old laptop in his office, plugged-in and ready
to use, despite the presence of newer devices in his home. The
jury could consider the fact that the old laptop was kept through
at least two moves, and it was placed in Defendant’s “office area”
instead of the living room. Additionally, Agent Thigpen testified
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 25 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
26
that while the search was ongoing, Defendant repeatedly looked up
to the loft. These facts allow the jury to draw reasonable
inferences and conclusions that Defendant had knowledge of the
child pornography.
The Government utilized Rule 404(b) and 414(a) evidence to
demonstrate that Defendant had been searching for, downloading,
viewing, and deleting child pornography for a ten-year period.
The search terms used over the ten-year period were similar and
related to a very specific genre of child pornography. The
Government also presented testimony that on at least two dates
when the laptop was being used to download child pornography,
Defendant was logging into websites related to his work or his
personal email account. The admin log-in count showed that nearly
every time the computer was used for a four-year period, except
for two brief segments, it was used to access child pornography.
The thumb drive contained evidence of files containing suspected
child pornography, prior to Defendant’s first use of the laptop.
The thumb drive contained evidence that Defendant used it for his
assignments in school, and his school files were created within
one or two months of the creation of the child pornography files.
Defendant possessed and used the thumb drive, and the jury was
free to consider thumb drive evidence, along with all of the
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 26 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
27
historical restore point evidence, for the purposes the Court
listed in its jury instructions. See ECF No. 75 at 10–11.
As the Court instructed the jury, it was free to consider the
testimony of Defendant and his witnesses and choose to believe the
testimony or disregard it, just as it would with any of the
Government’s witnesses. See United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,
868 (4th Cir. 1996). In this case, it appears that the jury did
not believe the testimony of Defendant and his witnesses. While
Defendant produced some documentation to support his alibis, the
alibis were not ironclad. With respect to Count One, on April 4,
2019, the downloads took place between 7:55 a.m. and 7:56 a.m. It
is undisputed that Defendant’s interview took place later in the
day, and there was no direct evidence that he was not at home while
the downloads took place — only testimony that he generally would
have left for work by then. While Amy testified that Defendant
had left for work by then, and she remembered it well, she did not
remember whether Jeremy Harp was at her home that morning. With
respect to Count Two, on September 18, 2020, the downloads took
place between 3:12 p.m. and 3:19 p.m. None of the witnesses had
firsthand knowledge that Defendant was actually at the job site
with his father-in-law that day — only that he was generally
working on the job at the time. Amy Harp also testified that she
was not home that afternoon.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 27 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
28
With respect to Count Three, on September 21, 2020, the
downloads took place between 11:59 a.m. and 12:34 p.m. It would
be rational for the jury to disbelieve the Harps’ testimony about
when they arrived home from the car dealership. At 10:00 a.m.,
Amy Harp texted her mother to let her know that they had bought
the car. Still, Defendant and Amy testified that they did not
leave the car dealership for two more hours because they were
waiting for insurance information. Amy first testified that she
and Defendant arrived home at 1:00 p.m., and then she testified
that they were home by 12:50 p.m. Brenda Westwood, on the other
hand, testified that Amy was at her (Brenda’s) house at 12:00 p.m.
Even if the jury believed that Defendant was not home during the
downloads relating to one or more of the charged counts, Agent
Ryan testified that files could be scheduled for future download
in Shareaza, so the jury could have reasonably concluded that
Defendant would not have needed to be physically present at the
laptop at the time of a download.
The jury also had a reasonable basis to reject the defense’s
theory about Jeremy Harp. The defense witnesses never directly
tied Jeremy to the Harps’ home on the dates charged in the
Indictment. No one tied him to a similar crime that could have
reasonably led the jury to suspect him of the crimes charged here.
The testimony regarding Jeremy was vague, never pinning down his
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 28 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
29
presence at an exact time, and, importantly, Amy Harp never told
law enforcement about Jeremy. Further, if Jeremy is a
sophisticated computer hacker, he would not have left child
pornography in the laptop’s recycle bin, where it remained
accessible. It is rational that the jury rejected the theory that
Jeremy would arrive at the Harps’ home when no one was there,
download child pornography, view child pornography, delete child
pornography, and leave before the Harps came back.
The Court agrees with the Government that the cases cited by
Defendant, all of which also challenged the “knowing” element, are
distinguishable from this matter. In Lowe, child pornography was
found on a computer in the defendant’s home, and the defendant
shared the home with his wife and a child who was living with them
temporarily. United States v. Lowe, 795 F.3d 519, 520 (6th Cir.
2015). There was testimony that the laptop belonged to the
defendant, and the laptop had the defendant’s name as a username,
but anyone in the home could have accessed the computer and the
Shareaza program because nothing was password protected. Id. at
523. The evidence showed that a user downloaded the Shareaza
program in February 2011 and downloaded child pornography between
March and August 2011. Id. at 520, 521. In general, there was no
significance to the laptop’s browsing history, but it could have
been presumed, based on innocuous searches, that it was used by an
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 29 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
30
adult. Id. at 523–24. The court focused on whether the evidence
sufficiently demonstrated that the defendant, as opposed to his
wife, was the one who knowingly received, distributed, and
possessed the child pornography. Reviewing all of the evidence,
the court found that a juror “could only speculate about whether”
the user was the defendant or his wife, finding that the evidence
was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Id.
In Pothier, child pornography was found on a laptop in the
defendant’s living room, and the laptop was not password protected.
United States v. Pothier, 919 F.3d 143, 144 (1st Cir. 2019). The
defendant, along with two other people, received mail at the home.
Id. The defendant admitted that the laptop was his, but it
contained documents relating to at least two people, including the
defendant. Id. at 145. The court, noting numerous evidentiary
gaps, found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the
defendant’s conviction. Id. at 148.
In Moreland, child pornography was found on two home
computers. United States v. Moreland, 665 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir.
2011). When the laptops were seized, the defendant’s father was
living in the defendant’s home with the defendant and his wife.
Id. All three individuals regularly used the two computers, and
all three had access to the defendant’s username, password, and
email account. Id. Testimony established that the computers were
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 30 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
31
used to visit child pornography websites during the year 2007.
Id. at 146. Other testimony referred to the defendant’s father’s
“obsession with pornography,” as well as his efforts to destroy
his own hard drive after learning that the defendant was being
investigated. Id. at 147. The witness who examined the computers
could not testify as to where the images came from, when they were
received and deleted, or who was operating the computers at the
time. Id. at 151. The court found that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction. Id. at 155.
Here, in contrast to all three cases, additional and specific
evidence linked Defendant to the child pornography as opposed to
anyone else, and it linked him to it for a longer period of time.
The evidence at trial established that Amy Harp was the only other
known user of the laptop. No one testified to seeing Jeremy Harp
use the laptop — the theory that he used it is mere speculation.
Hammer testified that Defendant’s devices showed a pattern of
activity that included accessing child pornography, watching it,
and deleting it, spanning nearly ten years. Defendant’s thumb
drive, which he used as a student, contained child pornography in
2009 and 2010. The restore points on his personal laptop, which
he bought in 2011, indicated that the laptop was used to search
for child pornography in 2012. Defendant did not meet Amy Harp
until June 2012 and did not marry her until 2015. Thus, child
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 31 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
32
pornography was sought out, and the type of pornography sought out
remained consistent, both before Defendant’s relationship with Amy
Harp and after. The laptop remained with Defendant while he lived
in at least three different residences. The laptop was linked to
Defendant’s email address and work website. The laptop was not
located in a common living area. It was found in the loft near
what appeared to be Defendant’s work computer and work documents.
It would have been reasonable for the jury to believe, based on
the evidence presented, that the loft was Defendant’s personal
area, and he used his old laptop in the loft to download and view
child pornography in private.
Overall, the evidence elicited at trial, along with all
reasonable inferences derived therefrom, supports the jury’s
conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was the person
who knowingly received and possessed the child pornography found
on the laptop. The interests of justice do not require the Court
to conduct a new trial.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion is DENIED
[ECF No. 84].
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel of record.
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 32 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>
USA V. HARP 1:23-CR-69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [ECF NO. 84]
33
DATED: December 9, 2024
____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 1:23-cr-00069-TSK-MJA Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 33 of 33 PageID
#: <pageID>