United States v. Anthony Palomino-Coronado

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• indicating that production of child pornography under § 2251(a) is a specific-intent crime
• explaining that the defendant must act “with the specific intent to produce a visual depiction; it is not sufficient simply to prove that the defendant purposefully took a picture”
• noting that circumstantial evidence can show that a defendant acted with purpose, and that “courts do not require that a defendant be single-minded in his purpose to support a conviction”
• holding that “the government waived its waiver argument”
• holding that “the government waived its waiver argument”
• finding insufficient evidence of purpose in part because the defendant deleted the only photo he took, of himself and his minor victim having intercourse

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).