United States v. Malloy

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a defendant’s invocation of constitutional terms to challenge an inability to present particular evidence supporting a particular defense is “better framed as an evidentiary argument” and thus subject to abuse of discretion and regular harmlessness review
• noting that because children depicted in child pornography frequently cannot be found, prosecutors must rely on pictures to show that subject is a minor and therefore prosecute those cases where the subject is “unmistakably a child”
• collecting cases upholding the constitutionality of statutes regulating the intrastate production and possession of child pornography
• noting constructive amendment occurs when indictment is altered to change elements of charged offense
• rejecting an as-applied challenge to § 2251(a) based on the argument that Congress cannot regulate the production of child pornography that has a “‘null effect’ on the ‘national market for child pornography’”
• no constructive amendment where trial court omitted indictment’s use of “knowingly” from jury instructions since knowledge was not an element of charged offense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).