United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809

Coutentos was convicted by a jury of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (d) and of possessing child pornography under § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2).
The abuse allegations involved KC, SZ, and their sister FZ, with video-recorded incidents and later testimony describing explicit acts at Coutentos's home when the girls were under eighteen.
An EH cautionary instruction on other-acts evidence was given to the jury after F.Z. testified about uncharged abuse.
Coutentos sought to introduce a defense expert (Dr. Maclin) on false memories; the district court excluded the testimony under Rules 702 and 403.
Coutentos testified in his own defense denying the calls of abuse and his other family witnesses testified to a normal environment; no reversal of verdict for alleged misconduct.
A statute-of-limitations issue was raised post-trial, with § 3283 applying to the production charge and § 3282 to the possession charge; later, § 3299 was enacted impacting the timing of charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effect of statute-of-limitations on counts	Coutentos claims ineffective assistance for not raising a limits defense.	The control periods differ: production charge falls under § 3283 and § 3299; possession under § 3282.	Concluded error affected possession count; possession conviction vacated; production conviction affirmed.
Constitutionality of Rule 414 evidence	Rule 414 is unconstitutional due to due-process concerns.	Rule 414 consistent with due process given Rule 403 constraints.	Rule 414 constitutional; district court did not abuse discretion in admitting/weighting evidence.
Admissibility of expert testimony on memory	Maclin's memory-science would aid the jury.	Testimony lacked case-specific application and would confuse the jury.	District court did not abuse 702/403; expert excluded.
Prosecutorial misconduct at closing	Prosecutor improperly vouched or urged credibility.	Arguments were within acceptable bounds; not improper vouching.	No reversible prosecutorial error; closing remarks did not deprive fair trial.
Sufficiency of evidence for production of child pornography	Evidence shows under-18 victims and camera used to record explicit conduct.	Defense argued against inference that recording produced depictions was intentional.	Evidence sufficient; production conviction affirmed; possession conviction vacated on count.

Hollow Horn v. United States, 523 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 414 probative-with-prejudice balance)
Mound v. United States, 149 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1998) (due process challenges to 414; desirability of Testimony)
Hartley v. Dillard's, Inc., 310 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2002) (expert testimony admissibility; rule 702)
Gabe v. United States, 237 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (Rule 414 probative value vs. prejudice)
Bentley v. United States, 561 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2009) (closing argument vouching critique guidance)