United States v. Grunwaldt: Intrinsic Digital Evidence & Subjective Intent in Lascivious Exhibition

Introduction

In United States v. Brandon Grunwaldt, the Fourth Circuit clarified two important principles in child‐pornography prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 & 2252A: (1) when a defendant’s own digital footprint—such as internet history and searches—forms part of the “same course of conduct” as the charged offense, it is intrinsic evidence that “completes the story” of the crime and is thus admissible; and (2) a jury may consider the producer’s subjective intent to excite lustfulness when determining whether a depiction is a “lascivious exhibition.”

This commentary examines the factual background, the court’s reasoning, the precedents it relied upon, and the potential impact on future prosecutions involving digital evidence and § 2251’s lasciviousness requirement.

Case Background

Parties & Court: United States of America (Appellee) v. Brandon Grunwaldt (Appellant), No. 23-4257, 4th Cir., decided June 4, 2025 (unpublished).
Charges: Five counts of producing/attempting to produce child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)), and one count of possessing child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)).
Facts: Between February and October 2020, Grunwaldt secretly videotaped his 14-year-old daughter in the bathroom on five occasions. Investigators seized his phone, iPad, home electronics and iCloud accounts. Five hidden-camera videos were recovered; his browser history showed searches like “Daddy-Daughter Porn,” visits to motherless.com, and saved videos of father-daughter sexual content.
Procedural Posture: At trial, the district court admitted his internet history as intrinsic evidence, allowed testimony that motherless.com “on occasion” contains child pornography, and instructed the jury on lasciviousness including subjective intent. Grunwaldt was convicted on all counts and appealed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held:

Jury Instructions: The instruction defining “lascivious exhibition” was faithful to Fourth Circuit precedent (Courtade, Knox) and properly allowed the jury to consider the defendant’s intent to excite lustfulness.
Admission of Internet History: Grunwaldt’s searches and site visits on the same devices used to record his daughter were intrinsic evidence—“integral and natural” to the charged offenses—and thus not subject to Rule 404(b) exclusion or Rule 403 preclusion.
Agent’s Testimony on Content: Testimony that motherless.com “on occasion” contains child pornography was not hearsay when offered to explain the agent’s investigative interest, not to prove the truth of the website’s content.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the five hidden-camera videos, combined with Grunwaldt’s repositioning of the device to capture his daughter’s genitals and pubic area, were sufficient to demonstrate a “lascivious exhibition” beyond a reasonable doubt.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Courtade (4th Cir. 2019): Held that “lascivious exhibition” involves depiction “to attract notice” to a minor’s genitals/pubics “in order to excite lustfulness,” and that subjective intent is relevant.
United States v. Dost (S.D. Cal. 1986): Introduced six non-exhaustive factors (the Dost factors) to guide juries in determining lasciviousness.
United States v. Hoover (4th Cir. 2024): Confirmed that web searches on the same device and timeframe as the charged offense are intrinsic evidence completing the crime’s “story.”
Other supporting decisions: United States v. Sanders (4th Cir. 2024); Deritis (4th Cir. 2025); rules on intrinsic evidence (Rule 404(b)) and hearsay exceptions (effect on listener).

Legal Reasoning

1. Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Evidence: The court held that Grunwaldt’s internet history was “inextricably intertwined” with the charged conduct: it showed his sexual interest in hidden-camera footage of minors and was obtained from the same devices used to record his daughter. As intrinsic evidence, it “completes the story” and is not governed by Rule 404(b).

2. Rule 403 Balancing: Even if considered under Rule 403, the probative value of establishing motive, intent, and design far outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice.

3. Jury Instruction on Lasciviousness: Fourth Circuit precedent permits subjective intent as part of the lasciviousness inquiry. The district court’s adoption of Courtade’s formulation—citing “excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation”—aligned with binding authority and did not require recitation of all six Dost factors.

4. Hearsay and Agent Testimony: Agent Bode’s unsolicited remark about motherless.com was offered to explain his investigative decision-making, not to prove what the site contained. Such “state of mind” or “effect on listener” statements fall outside the hearsay rule.

Impact

This decision reinforces two trends in child-pornography law:

Digital Footprints as Intrinsic Evidence: Investigators may admit a defendant’s contemporaneous searches and web history from the very devices used to commit the offense, so long as they “complete the narrative.”
Subjective Intent in Lasciviousness: Courts will continue to allow juries to assess whether a producer intended to excite a viewer’s sexual desire, rather than limiting inquiry to purely visual characteristics.

Future litigants should anticipate: (a) broader admission of device‐based metadata and browsing logs in prosecutions for digital sexual offenses; (b) continued use of Courtade’s lasciviousness test incorporating intent; and (c) reliance on intrinsic-evidence doctrine to circumvent Rule 404(b).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Intrinsic Evidence: Evidence that is part and parcel of the crime itself—like recordings, logs, or messages from the same time and device—so it “finishes” the story and is not treated as a separate bad act.
Lascivious Exhibition: A legal term meaning a depiction that both focuses on a child’s private areas (genitals/pubics) and is intended to arouse sexual interest in the viewer.
Rule 404(b): Federal rule barring evidence of “other crimes” to prove character; does not apply to intrinsic evidence.
Hearsay Exception—Effect on Listener: Statements offered only to show why a listener (e.g., an investigator) acted a certain way are not barred as hearsay, because their truth is not at issue.

Conclusion

United States v. Grunwaldt crystallizes two significant principles for criminal practitioners:

Investigators can leverage a defendant’s own browsing and search history—when it dovetails with the charged offense—as intrinsic evidence without running afoul of Rule 404(b) or Rule 403.
Juries may be instructed to consider the producer’s subjective intent to excite sexual arousal in determining whether a depiction of a minor is “lascivious,” reinforcing the holistic approach set forth in Courtade.

These clarifications will guide future prosecutions and defenses in the rapidly evolving intersection of digital forensics and child‐pornography law.