United States v. Kool, 552 F. App'x 832

Kool appeals conviction for misprision of felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4.
She was convicted of failing to report and helping conceal her husband’s production of sexually explicit photographs of a minor.
Photographs were found by Kool’s son and daughter depicting her underage daughter and nieces; the hand in some photos had Kool’s tattooed knuckles.
Kool allegedly tried to prevent police notification, helped delete images, and encouraged her children to lie.
Evidence issues include admission of husband’s nonverbal conduct and testimony about photos not depicting explicit conduct; Kool was sentenced to 30 months.
Court reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nonverbal conduct as hearsay	Kool’s nonverbal act was an assertion; Confrontation Clause applies.	Act was not an assertion; no hearsay under Crawford.	Not hearsay; district court did not err.
Admission of testimony about non-explicit photos	Photos relevant to motive/opportunity/intent/identity and absence of accident.	Images not sexually explicit and prejudicial.	Admissible; relevance outweighs prejudice; still admissible as other purposes.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial hearsay rule)
United States v. Mendez, 514 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2008) (hearsay determination under Crawford framework)
United States v. Jackson, 88 F.3d 845 (10th Cir. 1996) (burden to show assertion intended in nonverbal conduct)
United States v. Gonzales-Flores, 701 F.3d 112 (4th Cir. 2012) (preliminary question of admissibility of out-of-court statements)
Seeley v. Chase, 443 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Mares, 441 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2006) (standard for evidentiary rulings; permissible choice in circumstances)