1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) Case No. 2:13 CR 00084 PPS-PRC 

 v. ) 

 ) 

DANIEL THOMAS ECKSTROM ) 

GOVERNMENT SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Comes now the United States of America, by David Capp, United States 

Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, to respectfully request that the Court 

sentence Defendant to the maximum possible period of incarceration, followed by a 

lifetime term of supervised release, and in support thereof states as follows: 

I. Summary of Offense and Relevant Conduct 

Defendant Daniel Thomas Eckstrom stands before this Honorable Court for 

sentencing after admitting that, for a period of five years, he produced images and 

videos depicting himself sexually exploiting and abusing his own biological daughter 

when she was between eight and twelve years old, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). 

DE # 12 (Indictment, Counts 1-5). Defendant’s abuse of his daughter wasn’t a 

one-time or even a once-in-a-while occurrence; Defendant sexually abused and 

exploited his daughter on at least 19 separate occasions in 2009, 27 in 2010, 13 in 

2011, 26 in 2012, and once prior to his arrest in 2013. Id. Likewise, Defendant wasn’t 

an image-per-day or video-per-day producer; Defendant took as many as 349 

pornographic images and captured as many as 21 different pornographic videos per 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 1 of 25
2

day, and on most days captured a combination of images and videos. Id. 

The depictions Defendant produced of his daughter are graphic, hard core, 

disgusting and heart-breaking. Generally speaking they show: Defendant causing 

his daughter to lasciviously display her genitalia for the camera; Defendant 

performing oral sex on his daughter and causing her to perform oral sex on him; 

Defendant masturbating in front of his daughter and encouraging her to masturbate 

for the camera, including with dildos and vibrators; Defendant inserting his penis 

into his daughter’s vagina and in some instances engaging in forcible vaginal 

intercourse with her even after she repeatedly asks him to “stop” because “it hurts” 

while trying to squirm away; Defendant penetrating his daughter’s vagina with his 

fingers and inanimate objects including crayons, in some cases forcibly; and 

Defendant penetrating his daughter’s anus with his penis and with a vibrator. See

PSR ¶ 25 (providing general descriptions of conduct depicted for each date alleged in 

the Indictment) and ¶ 26(1), (2) and (4) (describing in detail three videos Defendant 

produced of Jane Doe 1); see also DE # 74 (Notice of Tendering Evidence for In 

Camera Review).1 Further, in some of the images and videos, Jane Doe 1 looks 

drugged – her eyes are swollen and partially or completely shut and she appears to 

be barely lucid or altogether unconscious. 

Jane Doe 1 describes the abuse as “absolutely horrible” and says she felt 

helpless and afraid that Defendant would kill her if she told anybody what was going 

 

1 The binder of images and disk of videos provided to the Court for in camera

review will be moved into evidence under seal at sentencing. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 2 of 25
3

on. DE # 70-3, p. 1. She describes Defendant as “manipulative and evil” and 

recounts him assuring her the activity was “normal” and offering her “gifts” like 

candy and chocolate to make her compliant. Id., pp. 2-3. Jane Doe 1 has “horrible 

memories” of Defendant giving her marijuana,2 which she believes damaged her 

brain. DE # 70-2. Jane Doe 1 says she hates Defendant and experiences a variety of 

emotions due to the abuse, including feeling “hurt,” “angry,” “sad,” “hopeless,” 

“nervous,” distrustful and “fearful of violence.” DE # 70-2. The psychologist who 

recently conducted an evaluation of Jane Doe 1 has provided a detailed summary of 

the extensive trauma and harm she has suffered, and will continue to suffer, as a 

result of Defendant’s severe and ongoing sexual abuse. See DE # 77-2. 

To make matters worse, Defendant didn’t limit the viewing of his homemade 

the depictions to himself for his own enjoyment. He distributed electronic copies of 

the material to others in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). DE # 12 (Indictment, 

Count 8). Jane Doe 1 knew Defendant was sharing the material and recalls him 

referring to her by an alias, talking about trading videos with others, and saying 

things like “be good for the audience” during the sexual abuse. DE # 70-3, p. 8. The 

material he produced includes depictions of his daughter holding up signs for, and 

passing along messages to, Defendant’s various like-minded online “friends.” See, 

e.g., PSR ¶ 25, p. 11. The sample the government is submitting to the Court for in 

 

2 When interviewed, Defendant admitted using marijuana “more or less to 

lure [Jane Doe 1] . . . . [n]ot like to drug her to do it, but like ‘Yeah hey, I’ll smoke one 

with ya if you wanna play around’” (referring to engaging in sexual activity). 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 3 of 25
4

camera review includes a video in which Jane Doe 1 relays a message to “Alan,” and 

others where pornographic videos of children are seen playing in the background 

while Defendant sexually abuses Jane Doe 1 in the foreground. Defendant’s sharing 

of the evidence of his sexual abuse of his daughter led to his identification and arrest 

and thus her rescue. See PSR ¶¶ 5-12. But unfortunately that same conduct has and 

will always magnify the harm to Jane Doe 1. See DE # 77-2, pp. 15-16. 

When asked how she feels about other people watching her father sexually 

abusing her, Jane Doe 1 writes that she feels “scared to walk outside” – a feeling she 

anticipates having for the “rest of [her] life.” DE # 70-3, p. 7. She lives in fear that 

“some psycho or pedophile will see [her], and try to talk to [her], rape [her], or kidnap 

[her]” and she becomes sad when she considers that those watching have or “will in 

the future, hurt their own children or children around them.” Id. 

According to information received from the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children (“NCMEC”), which tracks the proliferation of child pornography 

found in the United States, 10,528 separate depictions of Jane Doe 1’s abuse have 

been found in 77 investigations in 29 different states. 

 Tragically, Defendant’s child abuse was not limited to his biological daughter. 

Defendant also exploited two other minor females, Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3, who 

briefly lived in his residence in 2012. DE # 12 (Indictment, Counts 6 and 7). 

Defendant sexually abused and produced child pornography featuring six to seven 

year-old Jane Doe 2 on at least four occasions and exploited Jane Doe 3 on three. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 4 of 25
5

Id.; see also PSR ¶ 26(3) (describing in detail one video taken of Jane Doe 2 while she 

slept). Images and videos capturing that abuse are included in the sample of 

Defendant’s child pornography being submitted for in camera review by the Court 

prior to sentencing. That material includes: numerous photographs of Jane Doe 2 

and Jane Doe 3 with parts of their bodies exposed while they sleep; a video of Jane 

Doe 2 being caused by Defendant to expose and lasciviously display her genitals; 

videos of Jane Doe 2 sitting on Defendant’s lap eating a cookie or brownie while he 

manipulates her vagina with his fingers and digitally penetrates her; and a video of 

Jane Doe 3 taking a bath set to the song “Eraser” by Nine Inch Nails with the 

following lyrics repeated: “Need you. Dream you. Find you. Taste you. Fuck you. Use 

you. Scar you. Break you.” The victims’ mother reported Defendant’s abuse of Jane 

Doe 2 one week before his arrest in this case. See PSR ¶ 15. And we now know 

Defendant distributed pornography featuring Jane Doe 2, as NCMEC has reported 

finding 493 such depictions in seven investigations conducted in six states. 

In addition to his production and distribution of child pornography offenses, 

Defendant pled guilty to possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

2252(a)(4). In total, law enforcement found approximately 472 videos and 6,210 

images featuring Jane Does 1, 2, or 3 in Defendant’s possession. PSR ¶ 25. 

Defendant also possessed non-homemade child pornography that he obtained from 

others via the Internet which depict hundreds if not thousands of other minor 

children being sexually abused and exploited in every way imaginable. See, e.g., Id. ¶ 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 5 of 25
6

27 (providing detailed descriptions of 6 such depictions). Defendant’s total cache 

amounted to over 80,000 suspected child pornography images and over 600 suspected 

child pornography videos. Id. 

II. Application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Federal law requires that Defendant receive a minimum sentence of 15 and a 

maximum sentence 30 years of incarceration on each of Counts 1 through 7, for a 

combined total maximum sentence of 210 years. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). For 

distributing child pornography as charged in Count 8, federal law requires a 

sentence of between 5 and 20 years of incarceration. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1). And 

finally, Count 9, Defendant’s possession of child pornography charge, carries a 

maximum penalty of 10 years of incarceration. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2). Thus, 

statutorily, the Court could sentence Defendant to a total combined sentence of up to 

240 years or 2,880 months. 

Although the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (hereafter “Guidelines”) are 

advisory, the Court must nonetheless begin its sentencing analysis by properly 

calculating the applicable range Defendant faces under Guideline § 2G2.1. See 

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005). The Supreme Court has declared, 

“As a matter of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines 

should be the starting point and the initial benchmark.” Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Thus, the Guidelines remain an indispensable resource for 

assuring appropriate and uniform punishment for federal criminal offenses. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 6 of 25
7

Not surprisingly given the harsh statutory penalties called for in this case, the 

Guidelines, as applied by Probation, recommend that Defendant be ordered to spend 

the rest of his life in prison. See PSR ¶ 122. The Guidelines arrive at that 

recommendation by applying the following enhancements to Defendant’s crimes: 

 Four levels are added to the calculations for each count pursuant to Guideline 

§ 2G2.1(b)(1)(A) because the offenses involved minors under the age of 12; 

 Four levels are added to the calculations for Counts 1 through 5, 8 and 8 

pursuant to Guideline § 2G2.1(b(2)(B) because the offenses involved the 

commission of a sexual act and conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) or (b) 

as to Jane Doe 1 (i.e., Defendant’s use of force and/or threats of force to make 

her compliant and his rendering her unconscious by giving her strong 

home-grown marijuana); 

 Two levels are added to the calculations for Counts 6 and 7 pursuant to 

Guideline § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) because the offenses involved Defendant’s 

commission of a sexual act with Jane Doe 2 (which was captured in his child 

pornography) and Jane Doe 3 (which she informed law enforcement about 

after the fact); 

 Two levels are added to the calculations for each count pursuant to Guideline § 

2G2.1(b)(3) because the offenses involved the distribution of child 

pornography; 

 Four levels are added to the calculations for each of Counts 1 through 6 and 

Counts 7 and 8 pursuant to Guideline § 2G2.1(b)(4) because the offenses 

involved material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other 

depictions of violence; 

 Two levels are added to the calculations for each count pursuant to Guideline § 

2G2.1(b)(5) because Defendant was Jane Doe 1’s father and Jane Does 2 and 3 

were in his custody, care, or supervisory control; 

 Two levels are added to the calculation of Counts 6 and 7 pursuant to 

Guideline § 3A1.1(b)(1) because Jane Does 2 and 3 were sleeping and therefore 

especially vulnerable, at times when they were exploited and abused; and 

 Finally, five additional levels are added pursuant to Guideline § 4B1.5(b) 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 7 of 25
8

because Defendant has been convicted of a covered sex crime and he engaged 

in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct with three different 

minor children. 

Defendant has raised several objections to Probation’s Guideline calculation. 

DE # 71. The government has responded to the objections in part already, see id., 

but will address the new arguments made by Defendant in his supplemental 

sentencing memorandum, filed May 6, 2015 (DE # 75), below. However, it should be 

noted that Defendant’s objections ultimately boil down to an academic exercise 

because even if the Court sustained all of them, Defendant would still score out well 

above Life under the Guidelines. 

A. Jane Does 2 and 3 Were Vulnerable Victims 

First, as the Court’s review of the sample of child pornography evidence being 

tendered by the government will show, Defendant produced pornographic depictions 

of Jane Does 2 and 3 while they were sleeping and therefore vulnerable. Because 

they were unconscious at the time, Defendant was able to move and manipulate their 

clothing to expose parts of their bodies that would not otherwise have been visible. 

In the photographs of Jane Doe 2 sleeping, Defendant’s hand is seen pushing aside 

her clothing and touching her bare skin and genitals. In the photographs of Jane 

Doe 3 sleeping, Defendant’s hand is not seen but the child’s clothing is shown in 

unnatural positions (e.g., with her top pushed up to her neck to expose her bare 

chest) evidencing that Defendant was likewise able to move her clothing while she 

slept. Accordingly, United States v. Newsom, 402 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 2005) supports 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 8 of 25
9

application of the vulnerable victim enhancement in § 3A1.1(b)(1) to Counts 6 and 7. 

B. Defendant Used Force and Other Measures to Achieve Jane 

Doe 1’s Compliance When Engaging in Sexual Acts 

Defendant objects to the four-level enhancement in § 2G2.1(b)(2)(B) applying 

to Counts 1-5, 8 and 9, all of which implicate Jane Doe 1 because Defendant 

produced, distributed and possessed depictions of her abuse. As the Court’s review 

of the sample of child pornography evidence being submitted in camera will show, 

Defendant used force when engaging in sexual acts with Jane Doe 1. One video the 

Court will see features Jane Doe 1 telling Defendant that the sex act in which he is 

engaging hurts and asking him: “How would you feel, Dad?” in an attempt to evoke 

empathy from her father. When he continues engaging in the sex act anyway she 

says “no” repeatedly, to which he responds: “Shut up. Let me do the video.” In 

several other videos the Court will see, Jane Doe 1 tries to wrestle her father off her 

and in response he pins her body and arms down and continues the abuse. Although 

force alone is sufficient to support the § 2B2.1(b)(2)(B) enhancement, the government 

notes that the other two possible grounds supporting its application are also met 

here. Jane Doe 1 has described being afraid of her father due to his past use of 

physical force and threats of force. DE # 70-3, p. 1 (“. . . I was afraid he’d kill me if I 

told anybody”; “. . . . he hit me alot [sic]”); id., p. 3 (“He also used threats such as 

telling me if I’d ever get pregnant he’d use a coat hanger to give me an abortion.”); id., 

p. 4 (“But I don’t think he’d listen to me because he’d hit me with his fist if I made 

him upset. And he was good about it because he’d hit me in spots that would be 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 9 of 25
10

covered by my clothes, and if I struggled he’d hit me harder.”). Further, Defendant 

produced depictions wherein his daughter appears to be unconscious and yet 

Defendant has stuck his penis into her mouth. 

C. Defendant Produced and Possessed Sadomasochistic Material 

Each of Defendant’s offenses in Counts 1-5, 6, 8 and 9 involved 

sadomasochistic material and other depictions of violence. As the Court’s review of 

the sample child pornography evidence will establish, Defendant vaginally and 

anally penetrated Jane Doe 1, including with inanimate objects, and he vaginally 

penetrated Jane Doe 2 with his finger and with a vibrator. See United States v. 

Myers, 335 F.3d 1040, 1043-1044 (7th Cir. 2004) (approving application of the S&M 

enhancement where a depiction shows vaginal penetration of a prepubescent female 

by an adult male). The Court’s review of the sample non-homemade material will 

likewise establish that Defendant possessed depictions of other minors being forced 

to endure sadomasochistic conduct and violence. To the extent Defendant is 

arguing that his possession of the non-homemade material during the same 

time-period as his other offenses does not constitute relevant conduct to those 

offenses, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals disagrees. See United States v. 

Barevich, 445 F.3d 956, 958-959 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Ellison, 113 F. 3d 

77, 78-79, 82 (7th Cir. 1997). 

As for Defendant’s double-counting claim regarding application of that 

enhancement and the more serious sexual act enhancement in § 2G2.1(b)(2)(B), the 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 10 of 25
11

former applies based on Defendant’s vaginal/anal penetration of Jane Does 1 and 2, 

and the latter enhancement adds additional punishment to the charges involving 

Jane Doe 1 only because of Defendant’s use of force, threats and engagement in 

sexual acts with his daughter while she laid unconscious.3 In any event, Guideline § 

1B1.1, n. 4(A) advises that “offense level adjustments from more than one specific 

offense characteristic within an offense guideline are applied cumulatively (added 

together) unless the guideline specifies that only the greater (or greatest) is to be 

used.” See also United States v. Vizcarra, 668 F.3d 516, 526-527 (7th Cir. 2012) 

(holding that double counting is permissible unless the text of the applicable 

guideline instructs otherwise). Accordingly, § 2G2.1(b)(4) has been properly applied. 

D. Defendant Is a Repeat and Dangerous Sex Offender Against 

Minors 

Defendant argues (DE # 75, p. 6) that the five-level enhancement in § 

4B1.5(b)(1) should not apply because he “does not believe that the sentencing 

commission intended to add an additional five levels to any defendant charged with 

multiple [production of child pornography] counts.” Defendant’s misconception is 

contradicted by the very text of the Guidelines. See Guideline § 1B1.1 n. 4(B) 

(“Absent an instruction to the contrary, enhancements under Chapter Two, 

adjustments under Chapter Three, and determinations under Chapter Four are to be 

 

3 The definition of “sexual act” in 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2) is incorporated into 

Guideline § 2G2.1. See § 2G2.1, n. 2. That definition includes contact between the 

mouth and the penis. As noted, there are also several photographs depicting Jane 

Doe 1 unconscious with Defendant’s penis in her mouth. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 11 of 25
12

applied cumulatively. In some cases, such enhancements, adjustments, and 

determinations may be triggered by the same conduct.”). 

Further, the Seventh Circuit has affirmed application of § 4B1.5(b) in 

multi-count sex abuse cases. See, e.g., United States v. Von Loh, 417 F.3d 710, 

714-715 (7th Cir. 2005) (rejecting the argument that § 4B1.5(b)(1) should not apply 

on top of the Guideline calculations for multiple un-grouped hands-on offenses); 

United States v. Craig, 420 Fed. Appx. 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) 

(rejecting claim of double-counting when § 4B1.5(b)(1) is applied in addition to 

multiple un-grouped production of child pornography offenses); United States v. 

Shea, 493 Fed. Appx. 792, 794 (7th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (approving the 

application of § 4B1.5(b)(1) in case with multiple production charges); see also United 

States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170-171 (4th Cir. 2014) (rejecting double-counting 

claim as to application of both § 2G2.2(b)(5) and § 4B1.5(b)(1) because the Guidelines 

“intend the cumulative application of these enhancements” and noting that the latter 

provision “aims . . . to allow a district court to impose an enhanced period of 

incarceration because the defendant presents a continuing danger to the public”); 

United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 285-286 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting the 

Sentencing Commission’s background comment which explains that § 4B1.5 “is 

intended to identify ‘repeat sex offenders,’ who pose ‘a continuing danger to the 

public’”, and recognizing that in other areas of the law “two crimes can suffice to 

demonstrate a pattern of conduct posing a continuing danger to the public”). 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 12 of 25
13

There is no doubt based on the facts of this case that Defendant is a repeat sex 

offender who poses a continuing danger to the public. While “only” charged with 

seven counts of producing child pornography – one for each year he committed the 

crime using Jane Doe 1, and one for each year he committed it using Jane Does 2 and 

3 – it is worth noting that Defendant could have been charged with 93 separate 

production counts. See DE # 12. That is because each episode of the production of 

child pornography harms the victim in a separate and distinct fashion. See Guideline 

§ 3D1.2 (specifically excluding production charges from the grouping rules); see also

United States v. Wise, 447 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2006) (“The district court’s decision to 

treat Wise’s production counts occurring on different days as separate harms was 

consonant with both the plain language of § 3D1.2 and the examples in the 

commentary[, as well as] the circuit courts that have addressed this and closely 

related issues.”) (citing United States v. Searle, 65 Fed. Appx. 343, 346 (2d Cir.2003) 

(unpublished) (considering multiple counts of production of child pornography 

involving one victim and concluding that the district court properly declined to group 

the counts because the child victim “was harmed separately by the conduct embodied 

in each count of conviction”); United States v. Big Medicine, 73 F.3d 994, 997 (10th 

Cir.1995) (holding that the defendant’s seventy-five instances of sexual contact with 

the same minor should not be grouped)). The Seventh Circuit reached the same 

conclusion in United States v. Von Loh, 417 F.3d 710, 714 (7th Cir. 2005), a statutory 

rape case in which it rejected the defendant’s claims that his counts of engaging in 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 13 of 25
14

sexual acts with the same minor on separate dates should be grouped together. 

While it is true Defendant wasn’t arrested or charged until after the commission of 

his 93rd production offense, that fact has no bearing on his status as a repeat and 

dangerous sex offender of children. 

III. Response to Defendant’s Arguments for a Below-Guideline Sentence 

Despite scoring out well above life under the Guidelines, Defendant asks the 

Court to sentence him to 30 years in prison – the statutory maximum he would face if 

he had produced a single image of child pornography. In support, Defendant cites 

his timely admissions of guilt and his post-offense rehabilitative efforts. See DE # 

PSR ¶ 179; 75, p. 7. Defendant has already been given full credit for accepting 

responsibility, however, and should should not receive extra credit for “truthfully 

admitting the conduct comprising the offense(s) of conviction” or for engaging in 

“post-offense rehabilitative efforts.” Compare Guideline § 3E1.1, n. 1(A) and (G) 

(providing acceptance credit on those bases) with Guideline § 5K2.0(d) (2) (listing 

acceptance of responsibility “which may be taken into account only under § 3E1.1” 

among prohibited Guideline departure grounds). 

Defendant’s attempt to blame his behavior on his unfortunate upbringing (see

DE # 57, pp. 3-4; “Considering such an upbringing, it is not surprising that Mr. 

Eckstrom was left with a confused view of appropriate sexual practices.”) is likewise 

undeserving of weight. See Guideline § 5H1.12 (listing both as “not relevant grounds 

in determining whether a departure is warranted”) and § 5K2.0(d)(1) (prohibiting 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 14 of 25
15

departure on those grounds).4 As is the suggestion that Defendant’s alcohol or drug 

use is to blame. Id. (listing drug or alcohol dependence or abuse among the prohibited 

departure grounds). Although merely advisory, the Commission’s stance against 

these departure justifications deserves weight. 

Well after being caught and while arguing for a significantly below-Guideline 

sentence, Defendant says he feels “sincere remorse” for his crimes, suggesting that is 

the “most important factor for the [C]ourt to consider for a below Guideline 

sentence.” DE # 57, p. 5; see also DE 75-1, p. 1 (acknowledging his “need to apologize 

to the victims and their families” for his criminal acts). Defendant’s expressions of 

remorse should be viewed skeptically, however, due to his lack of remorse prior to 

arrest. In fact, prior to his arrest, while communicating with like-minded 

individuals online, Defendant only expressed concern about getting caught and tried 

to cover his tracks. PSR ¶ 28. “At one point, Defendant advised his pen-pals to 

delete their correspondence and to stop contacting him as he [was] going to stop 

sharing material to ‘protect his family.’” 5 Id. Defendant’s goal was to protect 

himself and to prevent the discovery of his sexual abuse of his daughter. 

Equally unavailing is Defendant’s attempt to seek credit from the Court for 

not putting the “victims through continuing emotional distress by forcing them to 

testify and relive the experiences to which they were subjected.” DE # 57, p. 5. This 

 

4 Even Dr. Hillard acknowledges that “multigenerational patterns [of abuse] 

within a family does not imply causality.” Hillard Report, p. 9. 

5 These facts were recited with the anticipated evidence at trial, see DE # 64, 

p. 28, as well as in the PSR, and Defendant has raised no objection to them. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 15 of 25
16

is a red herring. The victims’ faces and bodies, Defendant’s face and body and far 

more child sexual abuse than any jury could possibly stomach were memorialized by 

Defendant for all of posterity in the thousands of lurid images and videos he 

produced. As Defendant himself collected all the evidence the government needed 

to convict him, there would be no need or point to having the children testify at trial. 

In his original sentencing memorandum, filed on September 25, 2014 (DE # 

57, pp. 2-3), Defendant also took aim at Guideline § 2G2.2. But that Guideline 

played no part in Probation’s sentencing calculation in this case and Defendant fails 

to cite to a single source making similar criticisms of § 2G2.1, the section under 

which Defendant’s calculations were performed here. Indeed, to the contrary, the 

production guideline is highly regarded. See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Report to 

the Congress: Federal Child Pornography Offenses at 247 n.2 (2012) (the 

“Commission’s 2010 survey of federal district judges revealed that the vast majority 

of judges surveyed stated that the guideline and statutory penalty ranges in 

production cases were appropriate as a general matter”). 

Next is Defendant’s claim that a 30-year sentence is sufficient but not greater 

than necessary to protect the public because by the time of release, he’d be in his late 

50’s and his “risk of recidivism would be greatly reduced.” DE # 57, p. 5; see also id., 

p. 4. This claim seems to be based on the statement in Dr. Hillard’s report that 

“recidivism for in-household (incest) sex abuse (Baur, 2010) and child pornography 

(Report to Congress, 2012, [C]hapter 11) is lower than other types of sex offenses.” 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 16 of 25
17

Hillard Report, p. 11. But Hillman’s assertion doesn’t hold water. First, Defendant’s 

sex offenses weren’t limited to incest as Jane Does 2 and 3 were non-relatives. 

Second, throughout the very chapter of the report to Congress Hillard references, the 

writers make clear that they are discussing recidivism rates of those sentenced under 

the guidelines for non-production offenses (i.e., § 2G2.2, not 2G2.1).6 

The problem with relying on recidivism rates as an indicator of future risk is 

that the statistics depend on crimes being reported and successfully prosecuted. 

The vast majority of sex offenses against children go unreported, however. See 

London, Bruck, Ceci and Schuman, Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: What Does 

the Research Tell Us About the Ways that Children Tell?, Journal of Psychology, 

Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 1, p. 194 (2005) (reviewing numerous studies and 

concluding “[t]he evidence indicates that the majority of abused children do not 

reveal abuse during childhood.”). If the Penn State scandal taught us anything it 

was that even educated adults who witness child sexual abuse, or hear a first-person 

account of it from a reputable source, can be reticent to report the crime. 

One study aimed specifically at age and sexual recidivism offered the following 

explanation for lower recidivism rates among much older individuals: 

 

6 Even among non-production offenders, 30% recidivated within just eight and 

a half years. See Report to Congress, Federal Child Pornography Offenses, Chapter 

11 at p. 299. And that is a “conservative measurement of actual recidivism,” the 

Commission advised. Id., p. 295. “In evaluating any recidivism study, particularly 

one involving sex offenders, caution should be exercised because the known 

recidivism rate is lower than the actual recidivism rate.” Id., Chapter 12, p. 318. “It is 

widely accepted among researchers that sex offenses against children often go 

unreported or undetected.” Id., Chapter 11, p. 295. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 17 of 25
18

The abrupt drop in recidivism for offenders released in their 60s and 70s 

might then reflect new variables beginning to act. These might include 

loss of physical health and a significant reduction in effective time at 

risk due to mortality. However, some reckoning must also be made 

with possible changes in the reporting rate. Relatives’ willingness to 

report offending by a grandparent is likely reduced by the thought that 

he will probably die soon. Additionally, sexual misbehavior by the very 

old (for example in nursing homes) is often treated as a health problem 

(“poor old man, he can’t help it”) rather than as something to be dealt 

with by the criminal justice system. 

Thornton, Age and Sexual Recidivism: A Variable Connection, Sexual Abuse: A 

Journal of Research and Treatment, Vol 18, No. 2, p. 12 (2006). Thus, low 

recidivism numbers based upon arrests and convictions are to be expected in all sex 

offense cases, and especially those involving older offenders. 

Of course, that doesn’t mean older people don’t recidivate; undersigned 

counsel, for example, has prosecuted two repeat sex offenders near age 70 in the past 

six years. See United States v. Wigglesworth, 2:09 CR 184 JTM-APR (69 year-old 

former Catholic priest who married a former parishioner just after she turned 18 was 

convicted of traveling from Indiana to Illinois to perform fellatio on a teenage boy he 

met online in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); United States v. Zondor, 2:11 CR 183 

JVB-APR (69 year-old, who had previously sexually abused at least two minor 

females, convicted of possessing a large quantity of child pornography in violation of 

U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)). Further, studies show that when compared with rapists and 

sexual sadists, pedophiles comprise 60% of all older offenders, indicating that 

pedophiles offend in their later years at a greater rate than other sexual offenders. 

See Ryan C.W. Hall & Richard C.W. Hall, A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 18 of 25
19

Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues, 

82 Mayo Clinic Proc. 457, 458 (2007). 

Even if it is true that Defendant’s future self will present a low risk of sexually 

abusing children compared to his current-day self, in the words of the Eleventh 

Circuit: “A low risk is not the same as no risk. Adequate protection is a function of 

two variables: the level of risk that conduct will occur and the level of harm that will 

be inflicted if that conduct does occur.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1217 

(11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing United States v. Boyd, 475 F.3d 875, 877-78 (7th Cir. 

2007) (upholding a sentencing determination that the defendant’s acts created a 

substantial risk of bodily injury to another person in part because “[d]angerousness 

is a function of the magnitude of the harm that will occur if danger materializes and 

the probability that it will materialize”)). 

As Judge Posner has explained: 

Statistical analysis of sex crimes has shown that the best predictor of 

recidivism is not deportment at an interview but sexual interest in children. R. 

Karl Hanson, Kelley E. Morton & Andrew J.R. Harris, “Sexual Offender 

Recidivism Risk: What We Know and What We Need to Know,” 989 Annals of 

the N.Y. Academy of Sciences 154, 157 (2003) (tab.1). 

United States v. Garthus, 652 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Dr. 

Hillard’s Report and the record in this case remove any doubt that Defendant is 

sexually attracted to and aroused by children. Dr. Hillard diagnosed Defendant 

with “Pedophilic Disorder” with a sexual attraction to minor females. Hillard 

Report, p. 9; see also id., pp. 6-7 (“Referring to himself as ‘sick,’ Mr. Eckstrom 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 19 of 25
20

described a shift in his sexual preference. Prior to the escalation of his sexual abuse 

of his daughter, [he] had maintained interest in and experienced sexual satisfaction 

with adult females. However, due to his preoccupation with child pornography and 

sexual involvement with his daughter, he began experiencing difficulty having sex 

with adult females . . . . [and] could not become erect.”). Importantly, Dr. Hillard 

also describes Defendant as “one of the most serious pedophilic offenders [he 

has] evaluated.” Id., p. 10 (Emphasis added). 

Dr. Hillard’s conclusions are supported by Defendant’s admissions. See, e.g., 

PSR ¶ 21 (“Eckstrom stated that his sexual attraction is to girls who have some 

breast development, though he admitted to looking at ‘plenty’ of child pornography 

featuring younger children. Eckstrom admitted that he would masturbate while 

looking at child pornography.”); Id. ¶ 23 (“Eckstrom admitted that he looked at Jane 

Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3 while they were sleeping and would masturbate while 

watching them.”). The child pornography Defendant produced and the commercial 

child pornography he received and possessed likewise reflect his stated preference for 

prepubescent girls. “An offender’s pornography and erotica collection is the single 

best indicator of what he wants to do.” Kenneth V. Lanning, CHILD MOLESTERS: 

A BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS FOR PROFESSIONALS INVESTIGATING THE 

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN, 107 (5TH ED. 2010). 

But perhaps most troubling is Defendant’s inability to control his urge to view 

and produce child pornography. See, e.g., PSR ¶ 21 (“Eckstrom admitted that he 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 20 of 25
21

didn’t know how to stop looking at [child pornography].”); id. ¶ 178 (“Although unable 

to completely stop his conduct, Mr. Eckstrom . . . attempted to stop.”); Hillard Report, 

p. 4 (“Describing himself as ‘sick,’ he said he was addicted to child pornography, 

alcohol, and marijuana, and stayed home [from work] to view, organize, and 

exchange child pornography on the Internet.”); id., p. 6 (“He said he became anxious 

that he was going to escalate abuse of [Jane Does 2 and 3] and consequently, asked 

[their mother] to move out.”); id., p. 8 (“Due to marijuana and alcohol abuse and his 

compulsion to view child pornography, Mr. Eckstrom began to miss work.”). 

Once this Court witnesses a sampling of Defendant’s crimes, it will be 

uniquely positioned to appreciate and weigh the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a), particularly those assessing the nature and seriousness of the offenses, and 

the need to promote respect for the law and to provide just punishment, as well as 

specific and general deterrence. The government submits that no amount of 

jailhouse certificates, no record of employment, and no character letter can 

overshadow the images and videos of Defendant engaging in sex act after sex act 

with his own daughter and sexually abusing and exploiting Jane Does 2 and 3. This 

is one case where neither the seriousness of the offense conduct, nor the risk of 

danger the defendant poses to society, can be overstated. 

[T]he more serious the criminal conduct is the greater the need for 

retribution and the longer the sentence should be. The seriousness of a 

crime varies directly with the harm it causes or threatens. It follows 

that the greater the harm the more serious the crime, and the longer the 

sentence should be for the punishment to fit the crime. As we have 

stated before, “[c]hild sex crimes are among the most egregious and 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 21 of 25
22

despicable of societal and criminal offenses.” United States v. Sarras, 

575 F.3d 1191, 1220 (11th Cir. 2009) (affirming as reasonable a 

100-year sentence for an offender with no criminal history who sexually 

abused a 13-year-old girl and took photos of it). 

Irey, 612 F.3d at 1206. “[T]he deterrence objective of sentencing is ‘particularly 

compelling in the child pornography context’” because “imposing a lighter sentence . . 

. ‘tends to undermine the purpose of general deterrence and, in turn, tends to 

increase (in some palpable if unmeasurable way) the child pornography market.’” Id. 

at 1211 (quoting United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008)). 

The Seventh Circuit has urged district courts “to give respectful attention to 

Congress= view that child pornography offenses are serious offenses deserving 

serious sanctions.@ United States v. Grigg, 442 F.3d 560, 564-565 (7th Cir. 2006). 

The Seventh Circuit has consistently upheld “lengthy sentences for defendants 

involved in producing child pornography, even where the victims were not molested 

in the process.” United States v. Klug, 670 F.3d 797, 800 (7th Cir. 2012). In United 

States v. Noel, 581 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2009), the court upheld an 80-year sentence 

where a defendant, while babysitting his stepbrother’s child, abused his position of 

trust and took nude photos of the child while he slept. See also United States v. 

Boroczk, 705 F.3d 616, 622-623 (7th Cir. 2013) (affirming 70-year sentence in 

production case where the defendant will be first eligible for release from prison 

when he is 93 years old) (noting that the district court implicitly rejected the 

defendant’s claim that “the risk of re-offending decreases with advancing age”). 

And life or de facto life sentences have been upheld in this Circuit when 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 22 of 25
23

hands-on sexual abuse is proven. See, e.g., United States v. Jines, 597 Fed. Appx. 

886, 888 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding life-equivalent sentence reasonable for defendant 

who sexually assaulted and videotaped his daughter between the ages of 8 and 13);

United States v. Hodge, 729 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2013) (finding reasonable 

1,380-month sentence for production and other child pornography crimes, including 

the abuse of a 9 year-old girl); United States v. Chapman, 694 F.3d 908, 916 (7th Cir. 

2012) (life equivalent sentence was “consistent with the gravity of [the defendant’s] 

conduct” where he lured 12 to 16 year-old minors with drugs and alcohol and filmed 

them engaging in sexual acts with one another); United States v. Metzger, 411 Fed. 

Appx. 1 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming 235-year sentence for offender who possessed a 

large quantity of child pornography and sexually abused and exploited three victims 

aged eight to 11 by sexually touching them, videotaping them using vibrators, and 

encouraging them to engage in sexual contact with each other and him). 

Other federal circuit courts have likewise upheld lengthy sentences in similar 

cases. See e.g., United States v. Goodale, 2013 WL 6847032 (8th Cir. Dec. 30, 2013) 

(life sentence); United State v. Hamilton, 548 Fed. Appx. 728 (2d Cir. 2013) 

(unpublished) (1,800-month sentence); United States v. Herrick, 512 Fed. Appx. (6th 

Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (1,140-month sentence); Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191 (100-year 

sentence); United States v. Paton, 535 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2008) (life sentence); United 

States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820, 827-28 (8th Cir. 2008) (750-year sentence); United 

States v. Paton, 535 F.3d 829, 837-38 (8th Cir. 2008) (life sentence); United States v. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 23 of 25
24

Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2006) (140-year sentence). 

For years prosecutors and law enforcement have been warning Congress, the 

courts and the public that the content of the child pornography material available 

online is growing more explicit, the sexual acts more violent, and the children 

depicted younger and more vulnerable. This case, as shocking as it is, is simply one 

of many across the country. As the Hon. John R. Adams explained in United States 

v. Cunningham, 680 F.Supp.2d 844, 847 (N.D. Ohio, 2010), quoting Nelson Mandela: 

“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats 

its children.” Judge Adams continued: “[g]iven the recent statistics surrounding 

child pornography, we are living in a country that is losing its soul.” Id. 

CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons explained herein and in Probation’s 

Presentence Report, the government respectfully suggests that the only sentence 

sufficient but not greater than necessary to adequately address the factors set forth 

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is a lifetime equivalent term of incarceration, followed by 

lifetime supervised release. That sentence is appropriate based upon the nature 

and circumstances of Defendant’s offense conduct and the seriousness of his crimes; 

it is necessary to promote respect for the law and just punishment for the offenses; it 

will afford adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct of this nature and protect 

the public from further crimes of Defendant; and it will avoid unwarranted sentence 

disparities with defendants with similar records found guilty of similar conduct. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 24 of 25
25

Respectfully submitted, 

DAVID CAPP 

United States Attorney 

By: / S / Jill Rochelle Koster 

JILL ROCHELLE KOSTER 

Assistant United States Attorney 

5400 Federal Plaza, Suite 1500 

Hammond, Indiana 46320 

(219) 937-5500 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on May 7, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such 

filing to defense counsel of record. 

By: / S / Jill Rochelle Koster 

JILL ROCHELLE KOSTER 

Assistant United States Attorney 

5400 Federal Plaza, Suite 1500 

Hammond, Indiana 46320 

(219) 937-5500 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cr-00084-PPS-PRC document 78 filed 05/07/15 page 25 of 25