Criminal Law: Child Pornography-Appointment of Expert-Jury Instruction

Where a defendant in a child-pornography case challenged the denial of his motion to appoint his own expert to examine an agent’s laptop, the defendant did not present evidence to support his theory that ransomware on the agent’s laptop planted child pornography on his laptop, so the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, and the court also did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to present an innocent-intent theory to the jury because the crime did not require criminal intent, merely knowledge, so the judgment is affirmed because any error in admitting computer-generated reports was harmless, and the district court did not err in denying a motion to continue jury deliberations.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Juhic (MLW No. 74784/Case No. 19-1151 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J. (Heather Quick, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, argued for appellant) (Craig Peyton Gaumer, Des Moines, Iowa, argued for appellee).