file. Among other things, Miles testified that once an image is converted into a digital file, it can be edited with readily available and inexpensive technology. Miles further testified that he could not determine whether the two images that the state had introduced into evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt with respect to the charge of importing child pornography depicted a real person because those images, having been digital images, were capable of being altered without traces of alteration. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the state, however, the jury was free, notwithstanding Miles’ testimony, to conclude that the photographs depicted a real person. 38 In his initial brief, the defendant cited to one case, namely, United States v. Hilton, 363 F.3d 58, 64 (1st Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>), to support his .claim that the state was
holding that the psychological injuries related to the initial abuse were not sufficiently disaggregated from those arising from the viewing of the images because the counselors report did not show the victim suffered any harm from the continued viewing andor spread of the images holding that pornographic videos and images were properly authenticated where the government presented detailed evidence as to the chain of custody specifically how the images were retrieved from the defendants computers holding that government must introduce relevant evidence in addition to the alleged pornographic images to prove that images depict real child holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence holding that the act is constitutional because it restricts who may control the images but not what the defendant may introduce at trial