United States v. Coutentos, No. 10-2625 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of one count of sexual exploitation or attempted sexual exploitation of a minor to produce child pornography and one count of possession or attempted possession of child pornography. At issue was whether defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial; Federal Rule of Evidence 414 was unconstitutional; the district court made erroneous evidentiary rulings; the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; and the district court erred by denying defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal. The court held that defendant had shown that, but for defendant's counsel's failure to raise a statute of limitations defense, there was a reasonable probability that the result on the count of possessing child pornography would have been different. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on that count was vacated. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of F.Z.'s testimony was "not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect" and in excluding defendant's expert witness's testimony because it had little probative value. The court further held that, although arguably improper, the challenged comment made by the prosecution did not rise to the level of reversible error. The court finally held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that defendant produced or attempted to produce child pornography and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal.
Court Description: Criminal case - criminal law. Claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to timely raise a statute-of- limitations defense to possession of child pornography was fully developed for purposes of review and would be considered on direct appeal; counsel's failure to raise the defense on the possession count fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; the failure affected the outcome of the case since there was a reasonable likelihood that assertion of the defense would have led to dismissal of the charge; as a result, the conviction and sentence for possession of child pornography must be vacated; admission under Rule 414 of evidence of an uncharged incident of sexual abuse was not error, and Rule 414 does not violate the Due Process Clause; no error in refusing to admit defendant's expert's testimony regarding memory as it had little probative value and was within the ken of lay people; claim of prosecutorial misconduct rejected as the comments did not constitute improper vouching; evidence was sufficient to support conviction for production of child pornography.
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.