Fourth Circuit· 5/28/2009

United States v. Malloy

Citations

568 F.3d 166
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11507
2009 WL 1482594

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).

Judges: Duncan, Conrad, Western, Schroeder, Middle

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Other cases named United States v. Malloy

18 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.