In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive, Patreon

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 12 – Former ArsTechnica writer Peter Bright's re-trial for attempted enticement to sex of a minor resulted late March 16 in a guilty verdict from the jury. Photo here.

  The verdict came as other trials in the SDNY courthouse had been stayed, and another criminal trial with one juror deliberating remotely from his apartment, in Coronavirus COVID-19 self-quarantine.

   Bright's conviction was upheld by Judge Castel on September 16, 2020. Before sentencing, Federal Defenders submitted a memo - but the exhibit consisting of the argument that Bright is NOT a pedophile is withheld in full. Photo here. Inner City Press on November 2 filed an application to unseal, photo here, which Judge Castel on November 4 directed the parties to respond to be November 6 at noon.

On November 4, 2020 Judge Castel sentenced Bright to 144 months. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here and below.

On March 17, 2022 into the docket, notice of denial of Bright's appeal: "MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to Peter Bright re: [102] Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 20-3792. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 03/17/2022."

In November 2022 Peter Bright filed a pro se typewritten petition, recounting that while in the MCC he did not use Lexis Nexis; "the nature of my charge meant that I could not safety use this facility. Inmates routinely read over the shoulders of those using the computers, and are constantly on the lookout for those accused of sex crimes."

Judge Castel gave time: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Peter Bright (1) on [112] LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel re: Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. ENDORSEMENT: Time to respond extended to February 10, 2023 and time to reply to the Government's submission will be March 10, 2023. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 11/29/2022)."

Docketed on December 29, 2022, a succinct letter from Bright to Judge Castel, noting that the US Attorney's Office waiting until day 40 of its 60 days to ask, and must have known that the AUSA had a death penalty trial (US v. Saipov, which Inner City Press is also covering).

So Bright asked for appoint of counsel at this time.

Jump cut to December 12, 2024, when Bright's motion for sentencing reduction was denied: "OPINION AND ORDER as to Peter Bright. Accordingly, Bright is procedurally barred from raising this argument in a section 2255 motion, and if he were not, the motion would be denied on the merits. CONCLUSION. Bright's motion for section 2255 relief is DENIED. The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the motion (19 Cr. 521, ECF 108) and to close the civil case, 22 Civ. 8847. Bright has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; see Blackman v. Ercole, 661 F.3d 161, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2011). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 12/12/24).

From November 4, 2020: Peter Bright is speaking: "I did not identify myself as a pedophile because I am not one. I did not lie to my therapist." [But Doctor Kaplan's report is withheld in full, at least for now, as are Bright's lawyer's arguments based on it.]

Bright's lawyer: My client cannot pay the required fine. You'd have to make a finding of indigency. Sure he has two pensions in the UK, and a 401(k) with Conde Nast

Bright's lawyer: But he can't access those funds until he is 55. So he is indigent.

AUSA: I have confidence Bright's doctors evaluated him in good faith. But the jury found that the defendant was not truthful when he said he did not intend to have sex with the children in this case. His testimony was inconsistent with the finding of the jury.

Judge Castel: As to Mr. Bright, I decline to impose the obstruction of justice enhancement. But the trial testimony of Mr. Bright was utterly inconsistent with the finding of the jury. He thought she was a real person with real children being offered up for sex

Judge Castel: Or really, the jury found that he wanted to take it as far as he could, to engage in sex with these two young children. This is of the utmost seriousness. Mr. Bright, it is the judgment of the court that you are to be imprisoned for 144 months.

Judge Castel: Mr. Bright, after the 144 months, you are to be under supervised release for seven years. You must cooperate in the collection of DNA and register as a sex offender. Your computer can be searched anytime there is reasonable suspicion...

 Judge Castel: Mr. Bright, you must allow installation of software and applications on your devises to monitor you. To ensure compliance, there will be unannounced examinations.

 Judge Castel: Mr. Bright, you must not loiter in school yards or messaging boards or platforms that allow for real time interaction with other uses. 

Judge Castel: You will inform Probation before accessing any websites dealing with, among others, teens and kids, xxx, gambling, hacking, etc.  AUSA: We are not seeking monetary forfeiture, just the two phones.

Judge Castel: You will soon find in the ECF Docket a request of November 2 by Inner City Press, Mr. Lee, asking for unsealing. You are to address it [cites decision by Judge Koeltl - we'll have more on this.]

  On June 15, with still no trial resumed, the US Attorney's Office filed its opposition to Bright's Rule 29 motion for acquittal. Full filing on Patreon here; it says among other things that "Bright called Dr. James Cantor, a clinical psychologist, and also testified in his own defense. Dr. Cantor testified that “age play” is a type of sexual kink in which “participants are pretending that they’re a different age than what they are.” (Tr. 310). Building on Dr. Cantor’s testimony, Bright testified that when he first met the mother on KinkD, he believed she was an “age player” and that her children were “littles,” i.e., adults pretending to be children." We'll have more on this.

  Three days after the verdict with Inner City Press which alone covered the trials being asked many questions, including about the ArsTechnica editor who testified, we offered this:

 Conde Nast / ArsTechnica official Ken Fisher (formally, Kenneth Robert Fisher III) said that Bright never proposed to write any article about child sex exploitation, on ArsTechnica's Slack or otherwise.

  In fact, Fisher said, to the degree ArsTechnica cover the intersection of sex crimes and the Internet, they had a deputy editor who wrote their stories.

 On cross examination by Bright's Federal Defender, Fisher was asked, "You are familiar with his online persona, right?" Fisher replied yes. We'll have more on this.

   Back on February 19 in Bright's first trial a mistrial was declared, the day after the jury sent out a note that it could not reach consensus. The judge pushed for a fast second trial, which has now begun on March 10. The US Attorney's Office has sent Michael D. Maimin to second-chair.  On March 12 with Bright again on the witness stand, bragging how he makes "littles order off the kids' menu," Inner City Press live tweeted, here:

Bright: I live in Bushwick... With anal, you have to know what you're doing. Real people are not porn stars.  

He says "girl" in the Bronx was 30, Alicia.

Bright: I'm pretty sure vibrators are not used in classrooms. But we were fantasizing. ... It's called after-care in the kink world.

Bright: I know someone who tweets out her STDs test results every time. In the polyamorous world we are responsible

 Peter Bright: One of the joys of working at home is I can walk around naked. #Coronavirus

Bright (looking at jurors, some mouth agape) "A lot of Americans have never seen, at least first hand, an uncircumsized pen*s"

Peter Bright: When in photos I'm holding two Starbucks cups, I'm double fisting, it's a double entendre

 We'll have more on this.

Inner City Press covered the opening arguments, here:

AUSA Alexander Li: Peter Bright tried to have sex with a 7 and 9 year old. He was arrested carrying condoms, on his way to meet them.

AUSA Li: You may find the evidence disturbing. They met on Kink'd, then WhatsApp. Bright sent a picture of his [member]. But he created a cover story, that he was a journalist for a technology web site.

AUSA Li: We will call as a witness the editor of the technology website. He will tell you the defendant never wrote about child exploitation, and wasn't authorized to.\

Federal Defender: Peter Bright likes kinky sex with consenting adults. He likes role playing. On Kink'd, he was a dominant Daddy, an age player. We have an expert.

 FD: Age play is legal. Princess Mom set him up. She used the language of age play, on Kink'd. She sent him photos of children. So he went to gather evidence. He set his phone to record

 FD: The FBI got it wrong. He told Princess Mom where he worked. He is not guilty.

For these arguments, at which Inner City Press was the only media, there were many lawyers from each side.

Back on February 27, in a proceeding at which Inner City Press was the only media present, the only person in the gallery, a re-trail date has been selected: March 10. Federal Defenders confirmed that their expert will be available, on March 13. Judge Castel said that all of his previous evidentiary rulings apply, and that he will add to the jury charge language from his response to previous jury question 4, about intention. So it's on. Inner City Press will cover it, again. Threadette here. More including why and what at second trial on Patreon here.

 Bright took the witness stand on February 13 and called himself an "age player" and a Daddy. He said he prefers full bodied women with a lot of body hair - but denied that he actually likes children.

Inner City Press, which first reported Bright's presentment on the charges on May 23, here, started a Twitter thread about Peter Bright's matter of the fact statements about himself, here. More on Patreon here.

  By the end of February 18, the jury still had the case. They passed out a note, "unable to reach a consensus." Bright's Federal Defender Amy Gallicchio asked for a mistrial, but Judge P. Kevin Castel instead read the jury to so-called Allen charge, to see if that could break the deadlock.

"Legal Definition of Allen charge : a charge to a deadlocked jury to make a further effort to reach a verdict especially by each juror considering the others' opinions with deference — called also dynamite charge."

  Inner City Press remained in the courtroom. An hour went by. Then two. By they, Inner City Press chatted with that appeared to be Bright's parents, with British accents and on their way to Balthazar. They asked if this was normal. Well, none of it was.

  Around 6 pm, the jury passed out a nother note, that they would come in on February 19 and continue deliberating. Judge Castel told the lawyers that he would have another case at that time - another one Inner City Press is covering, as it happens - but that he would direct the lawyers in that civil case to decamp when the Bright jury has a note, or verdict.

 But when a note came out, Bright was led up to the bench and white noise turned on. It was impossible for Inner City Press, in the gallery, to hear what was said. By 2 o'clock, it was mistrial and Judge Castel was frustrated by defense counsel not committing to a March 23 trial date. He said in his day practicing, judges just declared days. A letter is due, when the defense and their expert witness canNOT do it. Watch this site.

 Earlier on February 18, the jurors passed out a note asking questions, including to see able the video of Bright's Q&A with FBI agents. This was played in the courtroom, in whose gallery were only Inner City Press and two older adults.

 But the FBI Q&A concerned girls of 17 years old - who told Bright she was "turning tricks" and a 14 year old who Bright said emailed him photos in panties.

  Bright was asked by the FBI, why did you respond? Bright said it was flattering to be flirted with. But he insisted he prefers or preferred adults *playing* young teenagers to young teenagers themselves. He was also asked by the FBI why he was telling an interlocutor about his foreskin, if he did not intend to show it to the young children she described.  What will the jury think? Inner City Press has asks for notice when a verdict comes, but continues to pass by the courtroom again and again, to check. Watch this site.

  Back on February 13 Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York let the jury go to lunch from 12:30 to 1:30 pm, then told the lawyers to return to discuss the jury charged at 1:15 pm. Inner City Press reported, It's coming to endgame, and it has.

  Assistant US Attorney Alexander Li in his closing statement emphasized to the jury the Peter Bright went to Duane Park with condoms to meet what he thought would be children. Li said Bright is not an age-playing vigilante trying to catch the FBI agent but rather a man attempted to have sex with children, with a lesson plan to teach about his foreskin.

   Many Federal Defenders were in the gallery for the closing arguments. Amy Gallicchio had argued, in writing, that "Mr. Bright actively engages in role-playing involving bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, sadomasochism, commonly referred to as BDSM. He is particularly interested in ageplay."  But what will the jury think of it? Watch this site.
  Yet more on Patreon here, including on the case's reference to... Justin Bieber.

The case is USA v. Bright, 1:19-cr-521 (Castel). 

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 130222 NY NY 10013

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2024 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for