United States v. Ricker, No. 19-2351 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Ricker traveled from South Dakota to Texas to sexually abuse the seven-year-old twin daughters of an acquaintance. He took photos and videos of the abuse. Months later, South Dakota officers received information that cheer_dad17 sent and received child pornography via online chat. The internet provider disclosed that cheer_dad17 was accessing the internet from Ricker’s address. Officers obtained a search warrant. During the search, Ricker made incriminating statements and confirmed that he was "user cheer_dad17." Officers seized several devices; forensic review revealed approximately 30,000 images and more than 100 videos of child pornography and child erotica, including images of the twins.
Ricker was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a child who had not attained the age of 12 years; travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct; and counts related to the transportation, distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography. He was deemed competent to stand trial. His evaluation included diagnostic impressions of autism spectrum disorder and major depression. The court found that Ricker had a prior conviction for possession or distribution of child pornography and sentenced him to 600 months’ imprisonment.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Ricker did not assert his Fifth Amendment rights by saying that his attorney was at a funeral and that his father wanted his attorney to be present. Ricker being on the autism spectrum and English being his second language did not make his statements involuntary. The court properly excluded from the courtroom Ricker's father, a potential witness. Any error in admitting evidence cover sheets was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence. The sentence was reasonable, given that this was “one of the worst child pornography cases that the Court has seen.”
Court Description: [Wollman, Author, with Gruender and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. At the time he made incriminating statements, defendant was not subject to the restraints associated with a formal arrest and thus he was not in custody; defendant did not assert his Fifth Amendment right to counsel by telling the officer that his attorney was at a funeral and that his father wanted his attorney present; defendant being on the autism spectrum and English being his second language did not make his statements involuntary based on the totality of the circumstances; no error in sequestering defendant's father after the U.S. Attorney put his name on the witness list as there was a colorable reason for the listing (defendant's announced intention to place his mental health in issue); it was error to admit descriptive cover memos regarding certain images as the memos were hearsay, but the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt; no error in admitting expert testimony identifying defendant's hand in photos of child abuse; for sentencing purposes, the question of whether defendant had a prior state conviction for possessing or distributing child pornography could be decided by the court without a jury; defendant's 600-month sentence was substantively reasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the sentencing factors; mandatory minimum sentence was not unconstitutional in this case.
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.