He would still be convicted on all seven charges he was convicted of, and he will still be serving a 120-year sentence.
The Cami Photos Are Only Part of the Racketeering Charge
Let me start by reviewing some basic facts regarding Keith’s case – and then move on to some other options that the EDNY prosecutors could have utilized in putting together his indictment:
– As I previously noted, federal prosecutors included 16 predicate acts to support the charge of Racketeering – and the jury unanimously determined that the prosecutors had “Proved” that Keith committed all 16 of those acts (“Proved” is the box that was actually checked on the “Verdict Sheet” that the jury handed in after its deliberations).
– Three of those predicate acts – i.e., Racketeering Act 2: Sexual Exploitation of a Child on November 2, 2005; Racketeering Act 3: Sexual Exploitation of A Child on November 24, 2005; and Racketeering Act 4: Possession of Child Pornography – are the ones that Suneel and other NXIVM diehards believe involved evidence that was tampered with.
– Had those three acts not been included in the second superseding indictment – or had Keith’s attorneys successfully challenged them during the trial – the jury would still have found that prosecutors had “Proved” that Keith committed the other 13 predicate acts – which would have been more than enough for him to have been convicted of Racketeering (The minimum number for such a conviction is two predicate acts).
Difference Between Exploitation and Possession Charges
It should also be noted that the elements of Racketeering Act 4: Possession of Child Pornography are very different than the elements of Racketeering Act 2 and Racketeering Act 3. That’s because Racketeering Act 2 and Racketeering Act 3 have to do with Keith’s alleged taking of the pictures of Cami on the indicated dates. Regardless of what Keith did with them afterward – and regardless of whether they were transferred to some other device – merely taking nude pictures of a child in the way that Cami was posed constituted Sexual Exploitation of a Child.
The prosecutors could have also omitted the predicate act of “possession” of child pornography – and replaced it with the predicate act of “distributing” child porn – in which case the mere fact that Keith moved around the naked pictures of Cami from one electronic device to another would likely have resulted in the jury finding that the prosecution had also “Proved” that predicate act.
The bottom line is that regardless of whether the Prosecution “Proved” that Keith committed 16 predicate acts, 14 predicate acts, or even as few as 2 predicate acts, all those outcomes would have been sufficient for the jury to have convicted Keith of the crime of Racketeering.
That is why I think this whole kerfuffle over the pictures of Cami is a waste of time.