It doesn't happen too often, but on Friday three judges issued opinions in a criminal case. Both Judge Jordan and Judge Luck dissented from parts of Judge Lagoa's majority Opinion in a case involving child pornography.

Judge Jordan's dissent focused on the Defendant's conviction for production of child pornography. Jordan didn't believe that the "purpose" component of the statute, which requires a defendant to use minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the "purpose" of producing content, was met. The Defendant in the case had snapped a single photograph during intercourse with the minor, and Jordan seemed to think the act was too spontaneous to satisfy the purpose requirement.

Judge Luck, meanwhile, opined that the majority's decision to vacate the Defendant's conviction for witness tampering was erroneous. Luck spent some time explaining what he believed the statute requires the government to prove (and what it doesn't).