Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss moves to acquit defendant following jury trial

Judge Rocky Coss granted a Rule 29 motion in a case involving a charge of pandering obscenity, after a jury heard several hours of testimony Monday, Nov. 6 in Highland County Common Pleas Court.

According to the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, under Rule 29, “The court on motion of a defendant or on its own motion, after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, information, or complaint, if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offense.”

As previously reported, James L. Duffield, 56, of Hillsboro was indicted in June 2023 on one count of pandering obscenity involving a minor, a fourth-degree felony. The indictment alleged that on or about June 2, 2022, Duffield did “knowingly buy, procure, possess or control any obscene material … that has a minor as one of its participants.”

A jury was seated Monday morning, with the trial beginning around 10:25 a.m. Duffield was represented by attorneys Jeffrey Meadows and Lisa Wells, with the state represented by Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins and Assistant Prosecutor Adam King.

According to testimony at trial, the Highland County Sheriff’s Office received a cyber tip from Internet Crimes Against Children alleging that an obscene photo of a child under the age of 18 had been downloaded at a particular IP address.

Duffield was later interviewed by Highland County Sheriff’s Office Detective Sergeant Vincent Antinore and allegedly admitted to downloading pornography onto a flash drive. However, Wells said in her opening statement that the photograph in question was never viewed by Duffield and that “to this day he has never seen it,” as law enforcement did not show him the photo.

The state presented three witnesses, including a local pediatrician, Dr. Poonam Singh, who testified as to the age of the child in the photograph.

Antinore took the stand for close to two hours, mostly under cross examination, as Wells asked many questions about the interview between Antinore and Duffield. The lead investigator, HCSO Detective Sergeant Erica Engle, was the final witness, as she testified about how she was assigned to the case and how it was investigated.

During the lengthy cross examinations, it was brought out by defense attorneys that there is a possibility that the image could have been artificially generated (AI instead of an actual child) and that efforts were not made to identify the child. It was also argued that no search warrants were executed, and no electronic devices were seized or investigated, in this case. Law enforcement also confirmed that Duffield was never shown the photo during the investigation.

After the state rested at 2:04 p.m., defense attorneys entered their Rule 29 motion, with Wells arguing that it could not be proven that this was a “real, live child” and that “there is no evidence” or “confession that my client stated that he had anything to do with this picture.” She also argued that there were multiple individuals that could have accessed the IP address alleged to have used to download the image.

“When it comes to this picture, in this one-count indictment, no one has put this in the hands of Mr. Duffield,” Wells said. “There simply is not enough proof to submit this case to a jury.

“I understand their reasons, their limitations, but regardless, there are witnesses that could have been called. There are witnesses listed by the state that the state chose not to present evidence for, the state chose not to pursue.”

Regarding the argument about the child being “a real” individual, Collins said the pediatrician testified that the individual in the photo “appeared to be” a child as well as “a minor.”

“You can draw the inference that is a minor and a person,” Collins said. “There’s no evidence otherwise. Everyone believed that it was, and there’s definitely no evidence that it’s not.”

Collins also argued that they “had a confession” from Duffield regarding downloading pornography.

Wells again responded that “there is no evidence” of the child portrayed being an actual “human being … because law enforcement didn’t use any of those resources to determine whether or not this child has been identified” in any databases.

Coss said that there may be “no evidence” that the child was real, but there is also “no evidence it is a product of AI,” and “a jury could conclude this is a real person.

“Whether the sheriff could have done other things, clearly, that’s a question that is legitimate,” Coss said.

However, Coss granted the Rule 29 motion based on lack of evidence for the photograph in question. The judge said there is “nothing in the record that indicates that [the photograph] was downloaded to the IP address” in Exhibit 2, which was the state’s information on the IP address Coss also pointed out there was not an admission by Duffield regarding this particular photograph.

“I would make it akin to somebody that had been committing a series of bank robberies. If you’re investigating a local bank robbery, and you ask if they’d been committing robberies during this period of time and they say yes, but don’t ask them about this particular one,” Coss said. “That’s not an admission. He was never shown this picture.”

Coss pointed out that “This is the first time I’ve seen a one-picture, one-count indictment on this type of case. Most of the time, there’s many, many pictures.”

The judge said another “thing that bothers the court is there’s no evidence of any particular device as to which it was downloaded.

“The problem I think we have here — or the state has here, I should say — is that I don’t find any evidence that this particular photograph is the one that is referred to in Exhibit 2 [records for the IP address],” Coss said. “There’s no identifying information on Exhibit 1 other than the photograph printout, and there’s nothing on Exhibit 2 that references Exhibit 1.

“Based upon that, the court finds that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a jury finding the defendant guilty.”

The jury was then brought back in, with the judge explaining that he would be dismissing the charge and thanking the jury for their service.

“This is my 111th jury trial, and this will be the third Rule 29 motion for acquittal that I’ve granted,” Coss told the jury. “It’s not something I do lightly.”

According to court records, Coss also filed an entry ordering the obscene photograph, which was part of the state’s exhibits, to be destroyed.