pornography cases.425 Of approximately 263 child pornography cases filed between 2000 and
2013, only three had a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the victim.426 In a fourth case, a
Victim Witness Coordinator was noted on the record but did not appear to actively represent the
victim.427 The complexity of the Supreme Court’s decision in Paroline428 makes it more critical
than ever for victims of child pornography to have sound legal advice and effective advocacy.
In one of the first child pornography restitution decisions issued after Paroline, the court
noted “the difficulty of calculating an appropriate amount of restitution.”429 In United States v.
Galan, the Government sought restitution for two of the defendant’s victims: $3433 for “Cindy”
and $500 for “John Doe IV.”430 Since Paroline failed to provide a reliable formula for calculating
the amount of restitution owed to victims, in Cindy’s case, the Government used the method of
restitution endorsed by the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Gamble,431 and pooled the losses
incurred by Cindy after the date of the defendant’s offense and then divided that amount by the
number of standing restitution orders.432 Based on the evidence submitted, the court found that
Cindy was harmed by the defendant’s trade in her sex abuse images, held that the Gamble method
proposed by the government satisfied Paroline, and ordered restitution in the full amount sought
($3433).433
However, the same court held that it could not order restitution in any amount for John
Doe IV because the restitution submission on his behalf, which included both a previous
restitution submission from 2008 and a recent letter from his adoptive mother that “evinces the
extent of the trauma and torment caused by the continued trade in his images” and makes
;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;
425 Susannah Kahler, Marsh Law Firm, Preliminary Survey of Federal Child Pornography Production Cases Between 2000 and 2013
(Aug. 2013) (unpublished, on file with author).
426 Id. In United States v. Duckey, the Government moved for the appointment of a guardian ad litem “because the defendant is the
father of the twelve-year-old victim.” Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem at 2, United States v. Duckey, No. CR 07-869-PHX-FJM,
2008 WL 619145 (D. Ariz. July 24, 2007). According to the motion:
The defendant admitted to an FBI agent that he beat the victim, and the victim’s step-mother was a witness to
this beating and past beatings. The victim’s biological mother is not a part of the victim’s life at this point. The
victim is in the care of State CPS, and the defendant is fighting to get custody back of the victim. In order to
proceed with this case, the prosecutor is required to confer with the victim or the victim’s representative
concerning various matters such as any possible resolution. Normally the prosecutor would confer with the
victim’s parents as the victim’s representative. In the case at hand that is not possible since one is the defendant
and one is a witness to the abuse.
Id. The court granted the motion and a non-profit victims’ rights legal services organization was appointed as guardian ad litem. The
defendant was ultimately acquitted, but the record reflects that the guardian ad litem actively participated in the proceedings.
In United States v. Hoggard, the Government filed a motion requesting the appointment of a guardian ad litem for two
minor victims. Since all of the documents are sealed, it is not clear why the Assistant U.S. Attorney asked for the appointment of a
guardian ad litem in this case. United States v. Hoggard, No. 00-20035-RTD (W.D. Ark. Aug. 16, 2000). The case involved a
prosecution under § 2251(b) (parent or guardian involved in the production of child pornography). A private attorney was appointed as
guardian ad litem to represent the victim. Ultimately, the case was dismissed upon the Government’s motion (the record suggests that
the defendant was being prosecuted in a parallel state proceeding).
In the third case, United States v. Lewis, the court, on its own motion, ordered the parties to show why a guardian ad litem
should not be appointed pursuant to § 3509(h) for four sex trafficking victims who were minors. United States v. Lewis, No. 09-
00213-EGS (D.D.C. Sept. 1, 2010). The court appointed a private attorney to serve as a guardian ad litem for the victims primarily for
the purpose of assisting the court in determining restitution. The record indicates that the guardian ad litem actively participated in the
proceeding by, inter alia, securing expert witnesses and filing and responding to motions. The court ultimately ordered almost four
million dollars in restitution.
427 Kahler, supra note 425. In United States v. Boyd, the Government filed a motion asking that the U.S. Attorney’s Victim Witness
Coordinator be provided with emailed notices in the case, but there was no indication in the record that the Victim Witness
Coordinator was “representing” the victim. United States v. Boyd, No. 06-00464-DB (D. Utah July 14, 2006).
428 See, e.g., Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710, 1727–29 (2014) (determining the amount of restitution).
429 United States v. Galan, No. 11-60148-AA, 2014 WL 3474901, at *4 (D. Or. 2014).
430 Id. at *3.
431 United States v. Gamble, 709 F.3d 541, 554 (6th Cir. 2013).
432 Galan, 2014 WL 3474901, at *3.
