Jane Doe v. Dean Boland
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23094
6th Cir.2012Background
- Dean Boland morphed identifiable children’s images from stock photos onto adults to argue defendants couldn’t know they saw child pornography.
- Images were used in Ohio state proceedings and a federal trial; Boland testified that morphed images could obscure the minor’s status.
- FBI uncovered Boland’s actions; he entered a pre-trial diversion in 2007 admitting violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
- Jane Doe and Jane Roe (via guardians) sued Boland under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(f) and 2255, seeking damages for injuries.
- District court granted Boland summary judgment on the theory of exemptions for expert witnesses; on appeal, this court held there were no exemptions; remand led to damages awards.
- The court must decide whether § 2255 permits minimum damages, whether morphed images satisfy the “child pornography” definition under § 2256(8)(C) for First Amendment purposes, and whether the district court’s award violated the Sixth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255’s minimum damages apply here | Doe and Roe are victims with injuries; the statute’s minimum applies | Minimum damages could be interpreted as a damages floor needing actual damages first | Yes, § 2255 provides $150,000 minimum per victim regardless of actual damages |
| Whether morphed images fit § 2256(8)(C) as child pornography for First Amendment purposes | Morphed images invade real minors’ interests and thus are not protected | Images are creative manipulation that may not be protected; however, morphed could be allowed | Morphed images are unprotected under the First Amendment; they implicate real children and are prosecutable |
| Whether the district court violated Boland’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel | Argues potential Sixth Amendment issue with civil damages | No significant Sixth Amendment violation shown | No Sixth Amendment violation identified; the award upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2002) (recognizes harms from child pornography as non-protected speech)
- Ferber, United States v. 458 U.S. 747, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (framework for government interest in protecting children from exploitation)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., Morphed images, 535 U.S. 234, 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2002) (discusses morphed vs virtual depictions and real-minor interests)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury in fact for standing requirements)
- United States v. Hotaling, 634 F.3d 725, 634 F.3d 725 (2d Cir. 2011) (morphed images implicate real minors; not protected speech)
- United States v. Bach, 400 F.3d 622, 400 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2005) (morphed images fit within protected interest framework)