Opinion ID: 203285
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Whether Children Depicted Were Real

Text: Wilder argues that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the photographs on which the convictions were based depicted real children. At trial, the government introduced, besides the photographs, the testimony of Dr. Celeste Wilson, a pediatric physician at Boston's Children's Hospital. She testified that based on her examination of the images at issue, keeping in mind factors such as facial features and physical characteristics of sexual development, she believed the children depicted were real and under the age of 18. When asked by the defense, Dr. Wilson admitted she did not have experience with computer technology. Wilson argues on appeal that the expert testimony was insufficient because it did not specifically exclude the possibility that the children in the images had been computer-generated, and the government presents no meaningful criteria for the jury to use in making an independent determination that the image... is of a real child. Wilder did not introduce any evidence during his defense that the children were in fact computer-generated. The difficulty with Wilder's contention is that this court has previously determined that the government is not required to produce a technologically expert witness in order to prove that an image contains real children. United States v. Rodriguez-Pacheco, 475 F.3d 434, 439 (1st Cir.2007) (noting that this circuit has rejected a per se rule that the government must produce expert testimony in addition to the images themselves, in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the images depicted are of real children). Wilder acknowledges our holding in Rodriguez-Pacheco but contends nonetheless that [i]f virtual images cannot be readily distinguished from real images, and an expert can testify only that images are consistent with those of a real child, a lay jury cannot reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt[ ] that the images are of real children. We held to the contrary, however, in Rodriguez-Pacheco, saying that [t]he question of whether or not a particular image is of a virtual child or a real child is an issue of fact, to be determined by the trier of fact. Id. at 438. Wilder attempts to distinguish Rodriguez-Pacheco on the grounds that in that case, the government's expert provided criteria to distinguish between real children and computer-generated children. But as noted, Rodriguez-Pacheco held that the government need not provide expert testimony. Id. at 439. The panel is bound by stare decisis in our circuit, except, of course, if the Supreme Court or our circuit en banc rules otherwise. Id. at 441. [7] The question is one of the sufficiency of the evidence. Here, the jury had before it the images themselves as well as the testimony of the medical expert that the anatomical detail in the images was extraordinary and was medically consistent with the images being of real children. Dr. Wilson focused on the facial features, physical characteristics of sexual development (including absence of breast development and sparsity of pubic hair), proportions of the body, anatomy and musculature of the positioned body, and indications of genital development of children of a particular age. The only evidence from defendant was the doctor's statement that she had no experience with computer photo imagery. We cannot reverse a jury verdict on these facts merely because the doctor's expertise did not extend to distinguishing, as a photography expert, between a virtual image and a real image. A rational jury could on this record find the government had met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The anatomical detail testified to by the doctor was extraordinary. See Rodriguez-Pacheco, 475 F.3d at 445.