U.S. v. Wehrle

In prosecution on charges of possession and production of child pornography, Dist. Ct. abused its discretion by failing to qualify police officer as expert witness, since officer’s testimony about image-extraction process from defendant’s digital devices pertained to technical concepts that went beyond ordinary knowledge. However, any error was harmless, where: (1) evidence against defendant was strong, given fact that defendant had confessed to police about abusing minor victim and downloading child pornography; and (2) govt. could have presented another witness to offer same explanation about data-extraction software. Also, officer’s affirmative response to prosecutor’s question as to whether defendant’s devices contained child pornography did not constitute impermissible legal conclusion, where officer’s response was properly admitted as fact testimony because it was ordinary and accepted way to describe what officer observed. Too, trade inscriptions found on defendant’s seized equipment indicating that devices were “made in China” or were products of were admissible under Rule 807’s residual exception to hearsay rule and did not otherwise violate Confrontation Clause since said inscriptions were non-testimonial in nature.