388 F. Supp. 3d 1086
D. Me.2019Background
- Defendant Bryan Scott Erickson pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography; sentenced to 75 months and 10 years supervised release in July 2018, with restitution deferred.
- Government sought restitution for seven identified victims depicted in images Erickson possessed; totals requested varied by victim ($2,000–$3,000 by government; victims sought larger amounts).
- Erickson conceded eligibility for restitution but contested the amounts and asked the court to exercise discretion rather than endorse government figures.
- The Court held an evidentiary hearing to apply the Supreme Court’s Paroline framework and to assess victims’ loss estimates and expert opinions.
- The court found many victim loss estimates either reliable (in part) or speculative, discounted certain damage categories (e.g., "loss of enjoyment of life"), and rejected overly speculative medical-cost projections.
- Court ordered Erickson to pay $12,500 total: $3,000 each to Cindy and Sarah (Marineland); $2,000 each to Angela and Emily (Tightsngold); $1,500 to Pia (Sweet Sugar); $1,000 to Maureen (Lighthouse); $0 to Vicky (whose losses were already covered).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2259 restitution is mandatory for receiving child pornography | Government: restitution required for each victim under §2259 | Erickson: concedes liability but disputes amounts | Court: restitution mandatory; Erickson liable and amounts to be determined under Paroline guideposts |
| How to apply Paroline's relative-causal-significance framework (including disaggregation) | Government: awards tied to victims’ documented losses and Paroline factors | Erickson: urged court discretion given practical difficulties of Paroline | Court: applied Paroline factors pragmatically, noting disaggregation is often impossible and should not become a rigid formula |
| Proper restitution amounts for each victim given defendant’s relative role | Government proposed modest per-victim amounts ($2k–$3k); victims sought much larger sums based on long-term loss estimates | Erickson proposed no alternative figures, asked court to use discretion to reduce amounts | Court assessed each victim’s documented losses, number of images possessed, lack of production/distribution role, prior restitution received, and ordered specified amounts totaling $12,500 |
| Reliability of expert loss estimates (especially medical/prognostic opinions) | Victims submitted expert reports and substantial loss calculations | Erickson challenged reliability/speculativeness of many projections | Court accepted some treatment and lost-income estimates as reliable, rejected speculative or poorly supported items (e.g., "loss of enjoyment of life," and large speculative future medical-cost estimates for Vicky) |
Key Cases Cited
- Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (framework for apportioning restitution among multiple child‑pornography offenders)
- United States v. Bordman, 895 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2018) (declining to convert Paroline disaggregation into rigid formula)
- United States v. Galan, 804 F.3d 1287 (9th Cir. 2015) (disaggregation requirement under Paroline)
- United States v. Dunn, 777 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2015) (disaggregation and application of Paroline)
- United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1239 (8th Cir. 1997) (limitations on retroactive application of later restitution statutes)
- United States v. DiLeo, 58 F. Supp. 3d 239 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (commentary on practical difficulty implementing Paroline)