United States v. Nedzad Juhic, 954 F.3d 1084

In June–Sept 2015, an HSI agent using automated tools (CPS and ShareazaLE) identified IP addresses sharing child pornography and downloaded files tied to IPs registered to Nedzad Juhic.
Agent Simon spoke with Juhic post-search; Juhic admitted he alone used the laptop, had ~"maybe 1000" child-porn videos, shared them, and knew the subjects were under 18; Juhic voluntarily provided his laptop.
Forensic exam of Juhic’s laptop found 1,548 videos and 38 images of child pornography; trial included video excerpts and agent testimony matching files to prior downloads.
Pretrial confusion arose when Agent Simon mistakenly reported loss of access to undercover downloads due to ransomware on an undercover laptop; Juhic moved for a court-appointed expert to inspect that undercover laptop, asserting potential contamination.
The district court denied the Rule 706 expert request and an requested "innocent intent" jury instruction, admitted automated CPS/ShareazaLE reports as business records (these included human-origin ‘child-notable’/‘series’ notations), denied a request to continue deliberations after a juror’s migraine, and the jury convicted Juhic of receipt and transportation of child pornography.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Court-appointed expert under Rule 706	No basis to appoint; district discretion; no evidence contamination would be exculpatory	Expert needed to inspect undercover laptop because ransomware may have planted files on Juhic's laptop	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; no evidence supporting contamination theory and timelines/technical testimony undermined it
Innocent-intent jury instruction	Knowledge, not motive, governs §§2252(a)(1),(2); instruction would be misleading	Sought to present innocent intent theory to negate culpable intent	Denial affirmed — transportation/receipt require knowledge, Juhic admitted knowing possession and sharing; instruction unnecessary/misstates law
Admission of computer-generated CPS/ShareazaLE reports	Reports either fit a hearsay exception/business records or are not hearsay	Reports contain human-derived 'child-notable'/'series' notations and are hearsay	Admission erroneous as to human-origin notations but harmless — overwhelming independent evidence supported conviction
Denial of continuance of deliberations after juror migraine	Court acted within discretion; juror said she could continue and court observed improvement	Requested recess until morning due to juror impairment affecting deliberations	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; record shows juror capable and no showing of prejudice

United States v. Provost, 875 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 1989) (trial court has broad discretion to appoint expert witnesses)
Sorensen ex rel. Dunbar v. Shaklee Corp., 31 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 1994) (Rule 706 grants district courts discretion to procure their own expert)
U.S. Marshals Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053 (8th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (district court power to call an expert)
United States v. Parker, 871 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing jury instruction rulings)
United States v. Xiong, 914 F.3d 1154 (8th Cir. 2019) (discussing defenses like innocent intent and public authority)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (machine outputs can become testimonial/hearsay when human input is involved)
United States v. Morrissey, 895 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2018) (spreadsheet with officer conclusions held hearsay when offered to prove content)
United States v. Iu, 917 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard for reviewing hearsay evidentiary rulings and harmless error)
United States v. Lundstrom, 880 F.3d 423 (8th Cir. 2018) (harmless error doctrine for evidentiary mistakes)
United States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2001) (review of jury-related decisions for abuse of discretion)
United States v. McMasters, 90 F.3d 1394 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court's discretion to grant recess requests)