Doe Ex Rel. Lora v. Boland
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 910
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Boland downloaded images of minors from stock photos, then digitally morphed them to appear sexually explicit.
- He used the morphed images in Ohio state proceedings as an expert witness/counsel in 2004.
- The government later indicted/charged Boland in federal cases; he entered a deferred prosecution agreement in 2007 admitting possession of such images.
- In September 2007, the children and guardians sued Boland under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(f) and § 2255, along with state-law claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Boland on the federal claims, declining to address the civil remedies at issue.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the civil remedies provisions apply to Boland’s conduct and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2252A civil remedies apply to expert witnesses. | Doe argues Boland’s conduct falls within § 2252A(a). | Boland contends no civil liability for experts exists under the statute. | Statutes apply to Boland; liability administered under § 2252A. |
| Whether common-law immunities or constitutional avoidance exempt Boland. | Immunities do not bar civil liability for expert testimony. | Immunities and constitutional avoidance may shield Boland. | Common-law immunities and avoidance do not bar liability; no exemption found. |
| Whether the Walsh Act and related statutes limit access to material in defense contexts. | Statute permits civil remedy for victims; cannot be bypassed for defense. | Walsh Act provisions constrain handling of child pornography in defense. | No exemption; civil remedies remain available. |
| Whether Gallagher and related provisions preclude relief due to prior court approvals in Shreck. | Shreck’s handling suggests a permitted framework for expert testimony. | Shreck did not authorize creation/possession of new child pornography; not a defense. | Shreck did not authorize the conduct; liability applicable. |
| Whether Ohio immunity provisions apply or federal immunity principles prevail. | State immunity could bar or modify liability. | Ohio immunity not applicable in federal civil action. | Ohio immunity does not preclude federal civil remedies; § 1983 defenses apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (immunity framework for § 1983 actions)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors and judges; limitations for witnesses)
- Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995 (6th Cir. 1999) (witness immunity limits in § 1983 context)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (First Amendment protection for non-obscene virtual images)
- United States v. Paull, 551 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2009) (restrictions on defense access to child pornography; fair trial considerations)
- Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. v. City of Oakland, 532 U.S. 483 (2001) (constitutional avoidance; interpretation of statutes)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (testimonial immunity limits; in-court statements only)
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951) (immunity principles; longstanding common-law traditions)
- Cullinan v. Abramson, 128 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 1997) (RICO; preservation of common-law immunities)