U.S. v. Baldwin

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss charges alleging sexual exploitation of minor, conspiracy to produce child pornography and possession of child pornography, even though defendant argued that she was victim of vindictive prosecution in retaliation for her husband’s successful vacating of his first conviction on similar charges. Record showed existence of five-year gap between date of husband’s indictment and defendant’s indictment, and that new set of prosecutors, when compelled to re-evaluate their case, made determination that evidence, including testimony from now-adult victims made charges against defendant appropriate. Moreover, prosecutor vindictiveness against defendant was unlikely, where husband’s success in vacating his first conviction was related to his counsel’s incompetence and not any missteps taken by prosecutor. As such, instant time gap, by itself, did not establish claim of vindictive prosecution. Also, Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that her 400-month below-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable, even though husband received only 324-month sentence. Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that sentence was unreasonable based on per-count theory, and instant difference in sentence could be explained by husband’s cooperation and contrition.