United States v. Christopher Frater

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: May 13, 2025
• Docket: 24-3258
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0245n.06

No. 24-3258

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT May 13, 2025 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ) OHIO CHRISTOPHER L. FRATER, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION ) )

Before: STRANCH, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Christopher Frater appeals his conviction for knowingly

receiving, distributing, and possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).

He argues that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he, rather than his

wife, received or distributed child pornography. We disagree and AFFIRM.

I.

In November 2017, Van Wert Police Detective Jeff Blackmore was operating an online

law enforcement surveillance tool called Gridcop,1 when he received seven complete files of child

pornography from an unknown IP address based in Lima, Ohio. After verifying that the files were

in fact illicit images and videos depicting child pornography, Blackmore subpoenaed Charter

Communications for information about the account associated with the IP address. The records

listed Christopher Frater as the registered account holder.

1 GridCop is a tool designed for law enforcement that monitors peer-to-peer internet activity of users distributing child pornography. No. 24-3258, United States v. Frater

Law enforcement executed a search warrant on Frater’s residence in January 2018. Frater

and two young foster children—one girl and one boy—were present during the search. Frater’s

wife, Nicky, was not. Agents confiscated several items, including Frater’s Motorola Droid cell

phone, several DVD-ROM discs, his desktop computer, the modem, router, an MP3 player, and a

digital camera. A forensic analysis revealed child pornography was present on the desktop

computer.

A grand jury indicted Frater in October 2018 on one count of receipt and distribution of

child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). He proceeded to trial in November

2023. Several witnesses testified for the government. Detective Blackmore, the lead detective on

the case, testified to how GridCop helped him identify Frater as the perpetrator. He described the

sexually explicit files that he received from Frater’s IP address and the way those files were

downloaded and shared via a peer-to-peer software called LemonWire and a peer-to-peer network

called Gnutella. Specifically, he explained how a user searching for child pornography must be

familiar with common terms such as “PTHC” (pre-teen hard core), “Tropical Cuties,” “Paradise

Birds,” and “daddypedo,” among others. And he confirmed that Frater’s IP address generated

several keyword searches including these terms.

Task Force Officer Steven Mueller likewise appeared for the government. Mueller, a

forensic examiner, analyzed the devices taken from Frater’s home during the search, and he

confirmed that Frater’s HP desktop computer contained child pornography. He spoke about how

he looked for stills, graphic files, and videos of child pornography, as well as a Global Unique

Identifier (GUID), which is a type of serial number that links a specific computer to the peer-to-

peer software program. Mueller was able to connect the computer’s activity with Frater because

the main user account was titled “Chris,” and he identified multiple documents that belonged to

2 No. 24-3258, United States v. Frater

Frater personally, including, for example, a college loan document. And while there was also a

secondary guest account titled “Nicky,” belonging to Frater’s wife, Mueller stated that he only

found child pornography on the User Chris account.

Mueller also spoke to the files that he found on Frater’s computer, describing where those

files were located and why there was no doubt—from a forensic perspective—that child sex abuse

material (CSAM) was located on Frater’s computer. He confirmed that the digital footprint of the

CSAM originated from the User Chris account. The jury also heard about the web history

extraction report that Mueller prepared of Frater’s cell phone. Mueller explained how Frater’s

web history contained common child pornography search terms, including “Tropical Cuties,”

“Family taboo,” and “Family strokes.” That said, no actual CSAM was found on Frater’s phone.

Christina Suther, a senior digital forensic examiner with the FBI, also testified. Like

Mueller, Suther analyzed Frater’s computer and cell phone. She first spoke to the files that she

found on the computer in the User Chris account. She explained that Windows records about fifty

of the user’s “most recently used files.” And of those files, she found child pornography opened

as recent as January 26, 2018—the same day as the execution of the search warrant—in the User

Chris account. More still, Suther noted that the User Nicky account did not have a password, but

User Chris’s account was password protected.

Suther also created a report that included a timeline of logins and logouts of each of the

two accounts on Frater’s computer. The report showed, for example, that the last login time for

the User Chris account was January 25, 2018, at 11:48 p.m., while the last logout time occurred at

12:58 a.m. on January 26, 2018. During that time, the user viewed child pornography. For the

User Nicky account, the last login time was January 24, 2018, at 12:44 p.m., while the last logout

occurred just three minutes later. Child pornography activity was not detected during that time

3 No. 24-3258, United States v. Frater

frame. And Suther found no evidence of a remote session—where a user logs in to his or her

desktop computer from a different device—or of a virtual private network, which she described as

a tunnel-like internet connection accessible only to authorized users. But there was evidence of

external media and flash drives associated with Frater’s computer and proof that child pornography

files were viewed using the flash drive. More still, Suther explained that though Frater’s computer

had viruses, they could not have been the source of the child pornography, dispelling any

speculation that the CSAM found was not attributable to conscious conduct. And Suther, like

Mueller, established that Google searches on Frater’s phone included visits to child pornography

websites on multiple dates between December 2017 and January 2018.

Frater’s former foster daughter also testified. She explained that she sometimes used

Frater’s phone to play games on. She testified that she saw videos of “kids and grown-ups having

sex with their clothes off” on both Frater’s phone and computer. And on some occasions, when

Frater did not know she was there, she would see him viewing child pornography on his computer.

Finally, Special Agent Brian Russ of the FBI testified. Agent Russ recounted for the jury

the voluntary conversation that occurred between himself, Frater, and another agent on the day of

the search warrant. They discussed Frater’s background and asked him whether he had any peer-

to-peer programs on his computer. Frater told Agent Russ that he used LemonWire and LimeWire

to download music and movies, but he maintained that he never viewed or downloaded child

pornography using that software. But Frater did concede a few points. He first admitted that

Nicky never used the LemonWire program. And second, he admitted to watching “sex videos” on

his computer.

Agent Russ also reported that he obtained Frater’s work records and compared them to the

network activity that Detective Blackmore provided him, which traced back to Frater’s IP address

4 No. 24-3258, United States v. Frater

and GUID identifier for his LemonWire software. All but one instance of recorded child

pornography activity (of which there were many), Russ remarked, occurred when Frater was not

at work. To explain this isolated inconsistency, several government witnesses noted that it was

possible for peer-to peer programs to run if Frater was not home. One witness further explained

that Frater had a folder on his computer that stored incomplete downloads and had a setting enabled

that allowed the peer-to-peer software to share downloaded files from that folder with other users.

After five days, the government rested its case. Frater did not call any witnesses or present

any evidence. The jury unanimously found him guilty. And the district court sentenced him to a

term of 120-months incarceration, followed by a 20-year term of supervised release. Frater timely

appealed.

II.

Generally, we review de novo a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

United States v. Collins, 799 F.3d 554, 589 (6th Cir. 2015). Under that standard, the defendant

“bears a very heavy burden,” United States v. Chaney, 921 F.3d 572, 589 (6th Cir. 2019) (citation

omitted), to show that no “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt,” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). But if a defendant

fails to make a motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 at

the district court, our review is “limited to determining whether there was a manifest miscarriage

of justice.” United States v. Jordan, 544 F.3d 656, 670 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

Frater claims that his conviction must be reversed because the evidence introduced at trial

failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly received or distributed the child

pornography. But Frater made no Rule 29 motion at the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief

or at the close of all evidence. Nor did he present a motion to the district court within 14 days after

5 No. 24-3258, United States v. Frater

the guilty verdict. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c)(1). Therefore, our review is limited to whether there

was a “manifest miscarriage of justice” such that the record is “devoid of evidence pointing to

guilt.” United States v. Price, 134 F.3d 340, 350 (6th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

III.

Frater’s central argument is that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the

pornography on his computer belonged to him as opposed to his wife. Frater asserts his case is

“almost identical” to United States v. Lowe, in which we reversed a defendant’s conviction because

the evidence did not sufficiently show that the defendant, rather than the defendant’s wife,

knowingly received, distributed, and possessed child pornography. 795 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2015).

He contends that the similarities warrant reversal.

In Lowe, the government produced tenuous circumstantial evidence connecting the

defendant to the crime. Id. at 523. For one, the family computer did not have a password. Id.

And the investigating agent “could not pinpoint when someone searched for or initiated downloads

of child pornography.” Id. at 522. He also admitted that while forensics could show the date and

time the illicit downloads were complete, the files could “take a very long time to download”

depending on factors like the internet’s connection speed. Id. at 521 (citation omitted). The Lowe

jury also did not hear any testimony connecting documented computer activity (like viewing

specific business records) to activities known to be completed by either the defendant or his wife.

Id. at 522.

Frater has not convinced us that Lowe requires reversal of the jury’s verdict here. Frater’s

case differs from Lowe in a few notable ways. First, the Lowe defendant moved for judgment of

acquittal—twice. Id. By contrast Frater did not, so our review is much more limited. See Price,

134 F.3d at 350. Second, the evidence in Frater’s case tells a different story. The government

6 No. 24-3258, United States v. Frater

brought forth ample circumstantial evidence connecting Frater to the pornography by showing that

most of the activity occurred while Frater was off work. The government also attributed “special

significance,” Lowe, 795 F.3d at 523, to Frater’s browsing history and computer activity, showing

the jury how Frater viewed a personal student loan document then opened child pornography files

soon after. All said, the evidence presented here does not require the jury to “stack[] inferences”

in the way Lowe found problematic. Id. at 523.

Frater responds that the government’s evidence is inconsistent because it was conceded

that not all child pornography activity occurred while Frater was off work from his job as a

corrections officer. He reasons that this inconsistency shows someone other than himself could

have accessed his computer to download and view CSAM.

But this small inconsistency does not diminish a record otherwise replete with “evidence

pointing to guilt.” Price, 134 F.3d at 350; United States v. Oufnac, 449 F. App’x 472, 476 (6th

Cir. 2011) (“[T]he presence of multiple computer users does not preclude a finding that only one

of the computer users knowingly possessed the child pornography computer images.”); id.

(affirming conviction because “ample other evidence” tied the defendant to the computer despite

other people having access to it); see also United States v. Pavulak, 700 F.3d 651, 669 (3d Cir.

2012) (affirming conviction because the computer had a single, password-protected Windows user

account with evidence tying it to the defendant, and because the defendant claimed the computer,

he was the laptop’s “likeliest user” and the “likeliest” to have accessed the child pornography

images); United States v. Schene, 543 F.3d 627, 639–40 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming conviction

even though defendant’s wife also had access to the computer and child pornography was found

on both user accounts based on the “collection of evidence” viewed “in toto”). Detective

Blackmore confirmed that the confiscated computer bore the same IP address, had the same

7 No. 24-3258, United States v. Frater

LemonWire software program downloaded, and contained the same GUID as the account that

shared the child pornography files with Blackmore. Frater admitted that no one else in the house

used LemonWire. The User Chris account was password protected and was the only account that

contained child pornography. Indeed, one of the foster children even testified that she saw videos

of “kids and grownups having sex with their clothes off” on Frater’s desktop computer and saw

Frater viewing images that appeared to be child pornography. Considerable child pornography

activity occurred while Frater was not at work. And the government’s witnesses confirmed that

there was no evidence linking the viruses found on Frater’s computer to the illicit activity, nor any

indication of remote access that would suggest a third party was responsible for the child

pornography on it. Viewing the evidence as a whole, a rational jury could conclude that Frater

knowingly received and distributed child pornography.

What is more, not only do we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict,

United States v. Bowens, 938 F.3d 790, 794 (6th Cir. 2019), the government need not disprove

every possible version of the facts to sustain a conviction, United States v. Lindo, 18 F.3d 353, 357

(6th Cir. 1994). The government explained that Frater’s download settings allowed the peer-to-

peer programs to continue downloading even when a user was not present. And this would explain

why it appeared someone else was viewing pornography even though Frater was at work. Frater’s

alternative theory—that his wife was downloading the child pornography—even if plausible, does

not satisfy his burden to show that the record is devoid of evidence of his guilt. See United States

v. Sadler, 24 F.4th 515, 547 (6th Cir. 2022); see also United States v. Stevens, No. 22-5410, 2023

WL 3200322, at *4 (6th Cir. May 2, 2023).

Frater offers one final retort. He contends that the government improperly attempts to shift

the burden of proof by relying on a lack of evidence that Nicky ever logged into the password-

8 No. 24-3258, United States v. Frater

protected User Chris account for any reason. But Frater ignores the mountain of other

circumstantial evidence that the jury did consider, including his familiarity with child pornography

terms, his cell phone and computer browsing history, his work records, the precise timeline of

pornography activity, the files found on the computer itself, and the observations of his foster-

daughter. All of this affirmative evidence is sufficient to carry the government’s burden. We see

nothing that suggests a “manifest miscarriage of justice” occurred here. Price, 134 F.3d at 350.

IV.

Because the evidence is sufficient to sustain Frater’s conviction, we AFFIRM.