United States v. Amy Unknown (In re Amy Unknown)

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. SCOTUS: Single possessor of child porn can’t be ordered to pay restitution for victim’s losses due to trafficking in her images by others

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderApril 28, 2014

    Paroline v. United States, USSC No. 12-8561, 4/23/14, vacating and remandingIn re Amy Unknown, 701 F.3d 749; Scotusblog page (includes links to the briefs and case commentary)Resolving a split among federal circuit courts about how to determine restitution in child pornography cases under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, the Supreme Court holds that where a defendant possessed images of a victim who suffered losses from the continuing traffic in the images, but it is impossible to trace a particular amount of the losses to the individual defendant, a court should order restitution “in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies the victim’s general losses.” (Slip op. at 21).Paroline was convicted of possessing hundreds of images of child pornography, two of which depicted the abuse of a person denominated “Amy.”

  2. Doyle Randall Paroline v. United States, USSC No. 12-8561, cert granted 6/27/13

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJune 30, 2013

    Question presented:What, if any, causal relationship or nexus between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s harm or damages must the government or the victim establish in order to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259?Lower court opinion: In re: Amy Unknown: United States v. Paroline, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012)DocketScotusblog pageThis is an important case for anyone handling federal possession of child pornography cases, as it will address restitution in those cases under 18 U.S.C. § 2259. Questions about the application of the statute in child pornography cases have arisen as a result of what some call the “restitution revolution.”