A-21-1038, William J. Quinn (Appellant) v. State of Nebraska (Appellee)
Furnas County District Court, Judge James E. Doyle, IV
Attorney for Appellant: Charles D. Brewster (Anderson, Klein, Brewster & Brandt)
Attorney for Appellee: Melissa R. Vincent (Attorney General’s Office)
Criminal Action: First degree sexual assault of a child, sex trafficking of a minor, manufacturing a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, possession of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, enticement by an electronic communication device, and child abuse.
Action Taken by Trial Court: During Quinn’s jury trial, United States Senator Ben Sasse wrote a letter to the Department of Justice, asking for federal assistance in prosecuting Quinn and referring to Quinn and his codefendants as “child rapists.” Quinn moved for a mistrial. In response, the district court individually polled the jury members. Only three jurors were vaguely aware that Sasse had made a comment related to Quinn, but none had read Sasse’s letter or were aware of its contents. The district court thus denied Quinn’s motion for a mistrial.
The district court also allowed rule 404 testimony regarding Quinn’s intent to sex traffic a minor on two instances to be given at trial, and did not receive the deposition of an unavailable witness. The district court denied Quinn’s motion to dismiss after the State’s presentation of its case in chief. The jury found Quinn guilty of three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child in violation, two counts of sex trafficking of a minor, three counts of manufacturing a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, two counts of possession of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, two counts of enticement by an electronic communication device, and one count of child abuse. The jury found Quinn not guilty of one count of first degree sexual assault. The district court sentenced Quinn to a period of 176.5 to 304 years’ imprisonment.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Quinn appeals, assigning that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss; admitting rule 404 testimony and not receiving the deposition of an unavailable witness; denying his motion for mistrial; imposing an excessive sentence; and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to provide affidavits in support of his motion for change of venue, to enter Sasse’s letter in evidence, and to object and stipulating to the admission of electronic devices into evidence.