United States v. Merrell, No. 15-3211 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed her sentence and conviction for two counts of producing child pornography. The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by denying her motion to suppress 47 photographs of her hands, and concluded that the manner in which the officers carried out the search here did not exceed the scope of the warrant. In this case, the warrant specified that law enforcement could search defendant's person, specifically body views and photography of her hands. Furthermore, the court concluded that the photography process did not exceed the bounds of reasonableness required by the Fourth Amendment, and her due process rights were not violated. The court also concluded that any error in failing to exclude an agent's testimony was harmless where substantial evidence other than the testimony supported the jury's verdict. The court rejected defendant's claims of error relating to the exclusion of the videotaped interview of the minor where any probative value was substantially outweighed by the videotape's potential to confuse the issues. The court further concluded that the district court did not err with respect to the jury instruction on lascivious exhibition. Finally, the district court committed no procedural sentencing error and adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The search warrant specified that law enforcement officers could search defendant and create photographs of her hands and the photography process used did not exceed the Fourth Amendment's bounds of reasonableness; any error in admitting a law enforcement officer's expert testimony that the hands shown in a child pornography image were defendant's was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence in the case, including defendant's confession that the hands were hers; district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a videotape interview of the minor victim, as any probative value the tape may have had was substantially outweighed by its potential to confuse the issues; district court did not err in using the Eighth Circuit Model Instruction on lascivious exhibition; district court adequately considered the 35553(a) factors at sentencing and did not impose an unreasonable sentence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.