## Facts

- Police responded to a 911 call from a 16-year-old who reported she had been kidnapped and identified Devin C. Wilson as the perpetrator.
- The minor told officers her belongings were at Wilson’s home and that he kept drugs there.
- She reported Wilson recorded her engaging in sexual acts using a video camera and a cellular phone, and she described the camera’s location in the front room.
- Officers obtained a warrant to search Wilson’s house and car for controlled substances and the minor’s clothing and bags.
- During the search, an officer found a video camera in the front room and removed the videotape; another officer seized a cellular phone from Wilson’s car.
- A federal agent later seized the same camera while arresting Wilson on a felon-in-possession investigation.
- Agents obtained separate federal warrants to search the videotape and cell phone; the recordings supported charges involving transporting a minor for prostitution and producing child pornography.
- Wilson was convicted by a jury of transporting a minor across state lines for prostitution, producing child pornography, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

## Issues

1. Whether the video camera, videotape, and cell phone were lawfully seized under the Fourth Amendment plain-view doctrine, including whether their incriminating character was immediately apparent.
2. Whether the cell phone was improperly admitted due to an alleged chain-of-custody defect.
3. Whether the First Amendment or 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) required a reasonable-mistake-of-age jury instruction for the child-pornography production charge.
4. Whether the district court erred by denying a mistrial after a prospective juror disclosed a similar traumatic event involving her daughter during voir dire.
5. Whether alleged defects in the grand-jury proceedings required reversal after conviction.
6. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions and the denial of the suppression motion.
- The court held the camera, tape, and phone were validly seized under the plain-view doctrine because officers had probable cause—based on the minor’s statements—to associate the items with child-exploitation crimes.
- The court held any chain-of-custody gaps for the cell phone affected weight, not admissibility, and admission was not an abuse of discretion.
- The court held neither the First Amendment nor § 2251(a) required a reasonable-mistake-of-age instruction.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in curing potential voir dire prejudice by removing the affected jurors and confirming remaining jurors’ impartiality.
- The court held any grand-jury error was harmless in light of the guilty verdict.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient on all counts.

## Legal Principles

- A plain-view seizure is valid when officers are lawfully present, have lawful access, and it is immediately apparent the item is evidence or contraband.
- “Immediately apparent” does not require certainty; it is satisfied when officers have probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity.
- Chain-of-custody deficiencies generally go to the weight of evidence rather than admissibility when the proponent sufficiently accounts for handling and authenticity.
- The First Amendment does not require a reasonable-mistake-of-age defense for production of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
- Trial courts have broad discretion in conducting voir dire and addressing potential juror bias; targeted questioning and removal of affected jurors can be an adequate remedy short of mistrial.
- A petit jury’s guilty verdict generally renders errors in grand-jury proceedings harmless absent a showing that the defendant was not fairly tried.

## Conclusion

The court upheld seizure of recording devices under plain view based on probable cause from the victim’s detailed allegations, affirmed admission of the phone despite chain-of-custody challenges, rejected any constitutional requirement for a mistake-of-age instruction under § 2251(a), and deferred to the trial court’s management of voir dire, finding no reversible error and sufficient evidence to sustain all convictions.


United States v. Wilson, 565 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2009)