Boland v. Holder, No. 10-4381 (6th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseHaving served as an expert witness and attorney in Ohio and federal courts, Boland possessed and created child pornography by combining benign images of identifiable children and pornographic images of adults and used the images to suggest that his clients do not satisfy the mens rea requirements of laws under which they are prosecuted. The images constitute child pornography under 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(C), but he claims that his use is legal an Ohio exemption for "bona fide medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by ... person having a proper interest." Boland was detained by the FBI and his computers were seized. He signed an agreement admitting to creating and possessing child pornography in violation of federal law; the government agreed not to prosecute. The district court denied Boland an injunction preventing the government from prosecuting. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that federal laws do not preempt Ohio child pornography law exceptions; that the First Amendment prevents prosecution of creation and possession of child pornography for use in court; and that unless defense attorneys and experts may take advantage of the Ohio exceptions, defendants in child pornography cases will be denied a fair trial.
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.