District court's sentence and conviction of defendant for producing and possessing child pornography is affirmed where: 1) district court erred in admitting detective's testimony, as it was unhelpful to the jury as lay testimony and inadmissible under Rule 701(b), but the conviction is affirmed because the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights; 2) for the same reasons that detective's testimony does not merit reversal, nor does the Dost instruction, as the outcome of the trial would not have been different without it; 3) district court's sentence was reasonable under the Guidelines, as evidenced by the fact that it was actually twenty years below the guidelines sentence of one hundred years' imprisonment; and 4) although the district court committed plain err in denying defendant right to a meaningful allocution, the sentence is affirmed because the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
Argued April 8, 2009
Decided September 4, 2009
Judges
Before Easterbrook, Chief Judge, and Kanne and Williams, Circuit Judges
