United States v. Donald Paris, Jr., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4857

Donald Paris, Jr. was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) for producing child pornography based on his admissions and surrounding circumstances.
Library staff discovered Paris printing emails/attachments suggestive of child pornography; investigators found printed pornographic pictures of children at the library.
Paris admitted to taking ~10 photographs of his four‑year‑old nephew while the child was changing clothes and to instructing the child to lift his shirt and pull down his pants. He said the photos did not show the child’s face and were framed below the midsection.
The actual images were destroyed by Paris (and he destroyed the device and memory card); no images were recovered or admitted into evidence.
Additional evidence: Paris attempted to molest the nephew while photographing him, exchanged images with a known child‑pornography associate, possessed a child‑pornography collection, admitted molesting other boys, solicited boy models online, and apologized to family—suggesting non‑innocent intent.
Paris moved for judgment of acquittal and later sought a new trial based on a prosecutor’s rebuttal comment referring to Paris having “zoom[ed] in” on the child; the district court denied relief and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove "production" and "lascivious" content under § 2251(a)	Evidence insufficient because images were not admitted; uncertainty whether genitals/pubic area were lascivious	Paris argued admissions and surrounding facts were enough to show nudity/partial nudity, focus on genitals, and sexual intent	Affirmed: admissions and corroborating facts sufficed for a reasonable jury to find production of lascivious images
Effect of absence of physical images on conviction	Absent images require acquittal	Court and gov’t: testimony and defendant’s admissions can sustain conviction	Affirmed: precedent permits conviction on testimonial/admission evidence alone
Use of Dost factors and standards for lasciviousness	Paris contended evidence did not meet lasciviousness criteria	Court applied Dost‑style analysis and common‑sense factors (nudity/partial nudity, focus, intent)	Affirmed: photos (as described) showed partial/full nudity, focused on genitals, and were intended to elicit sexual response
Prosecutor’s rebuttal remark about “zoom[ing]” in on pubic area — prosecutorial misconduct/new trial?	The remark improperly introduced unproven technical detail and prejudiced the jury	Government: "zoom" could be nontechnical shorthand for framing/focus; any harm cured by jury instruction	Affirmed: any prejudice was at most slight and cured by a cautionary instruction; no reversible error

United States v. Wallenfang, 568 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 2009) (evidentiary sufficiency and contextual proof in child‑pornography cases)
United States v. Ward, 686 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2012) (lasciviousness factors and context for photos of children)
United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming production conviction on testimony alone)
United States v. Lohse, 797 F.3d 515 (8th Cir. 2015) (use of Dost considerations in lasciviousness analysis)
United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986) (formulation of non‑exclusive factors for determining lasciviousness)
United States v. Kemmerling, 285 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2002) (summary of when a picture violates § 2251(a))
United States v. Brown, 702 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2013) (prosecutorial‑argument error and curative effect of jury instructions)