I was unaware that an appeal had been processed.
A jury convicted Thomas Alan Arthur of three counts of producing,
distributing, receiving, and possessing an obscene visual depiction of a minor
engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1);
five counts of using an interactive computer service to transport obscene
matters, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462(a); and one count of engaging in the
business of selling or transferring obscene matters, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1466(a). On appeal, Arthur challenges his conviction and sentence. We
AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part.
Dr. Ley is mentioned.
On the day of trial, the district court held a Daubert hearing on
Arthur’s proffered expert, Dr. David Ley.
This is amusing.
Likewise, the district court’s conclusion that Dr. Ley’s methodology
was unreliable was manifestly erroneous. Carlson, 822 F.3d at 199.8
Count 1 was reversed.
[T]here is no indication that the subject of the image in Count 1 is being forced
to perform a sexual act. The drawing is simple and utterly lacking in violent
depictions. Our independent constitutional review of the image charged in
Count 1 leads us to the conclusion that it is not obscene under Miller. We
therefore reverse Arthur’s conviction on Count 1.
FWIW, a doll cannot depict forced conduct.