U.S. v. Smartt

In prosecution on production of child pornography charge, Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in explaining to jury that first government witness was “victim” of charged offense, who would be referred to only by her initials to protect her privacy. While defendant argued that reference to witness as victim demonstrated improper pro-government bias, said statement did not constitute error, where Dist. Ct. was merely explaining why victim would only be referred to by her initials, and where witness’s testimony would quickly establish her relationship to charged offense. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in asking prosecutor whether he intended to seek admission into record 13 photographs that had been referred to in witness’s testimony, where prosecutor had sought admission to only one other photograph. Prosecutor responded that said photographs would be introduced into evidence via another witness, and Dist. Ct.’s question reflected reasonable effort to manage flow of trial evidence, rather than demonstrate pro-government signal to jury.