United States v. Paris, No. 15-1990 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for producing child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where the jury had more than ample evidence to convict defendant of producing child pornography. Defendant admitted that he had taken approximately ten pictures of his four-year-old nephew while his nephew was changing clothes. Defendant admitted to destroying the evidence. The court concluded that the absence of the images does not require an acquittal. The court also concluded that a comment by the government's attorney regarding defendant's choice to "zoom in" on his nephew's pubic area was not prejudicial because the effect of this alleged impropriety could have been only slight at best, and the district court's cautionary instruction would have cured any possible prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Arnold, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for production of child pornography; claim of improper comment by the government in closing arguments rejected as any effect the comment would have had was slight, and the court gave a cautionary instruction which cured any possible prejudice.
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.