Opinion ID: 203035
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Depiction of Actual Children

Text: Possession of child pornography that does not depict actual children is not criminalized. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002). Thus the prosecutor must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a picture relied on for sentencing purposes depicts a real child. United States v. Rodriguez-Pacheco, 475 F.3d 434, 439 (1st Cir.2007). Given this standard, the prosecutor need not rule out every conceivable way the pictures could have been made other than by ordinary photography. Id. at 444 (quoting United States v. Nolan, 818 F.2d 1015, 1020 (1st Cir.1987)) (internal quotation mark omitted). The question of whether or not a particular image is of a virtual child or of a real child is an issue of fact, to be determined by the trier of fact; that determination stands unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. at 438. Whether an image is that of an actual child is evaluated on the evidence as a whole. Id. at 442. There is no per se rule that the prosecution is required to produce expert testimony in every case to establish that the depicted child is real, for either guilt or sentencing purposes. Id. at 437. That is the approach taken in seven circuits. Id. at 440-41 (collecting cases from the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits holding that no expert testimony is required); United States v. Salcido, 506 F.3d 729, 733-34 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (same). No circuit has adopted a per se rule requiring expert testimony. Hoey argues that the judge cannot make this determination based solely on his own examination of the image. As we have previously noted, however, many circuits agree that [factfinders] are capable of distinguishing between real and virtual images, without expert assistance. Id. at 441. The argument is irrelevant here in any event. The prosecutor submitted additional evidence  the report from the Center  that Exhibit 3A depicted a real child. See id. at 443 (relying upon similar evidence). As to Exhibit 3A, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to conclude the image depicted a real child. It takes only one such image for § 2G2.2(b)(4) to apply. We examine only Exhibit 3A as to Hoey's remaining arguments.