The trial of a former technology coordinator with the Mount Vernon-Enola School District began Tuesday over the discovery of hundreds of images of child pornography on a Google Drive account linked to his school-issued computer.

Blair Michael Williams, 33, of Bigelow, came under investigation in May 2022 over accusations that he had sold a vape pen to a student and had engaged in questionable social media interactions with students. A school audit of Williams’ school-issued accounts and equipment turned up hundreds of images and videos depicting sex acts and exhibitions of suspected minors alone and with Williams, as well as screenshots of social media conversations with suspected juveniles discussing possible sexual contact and sharing of sexually explicit content produced over a seven-year period between 2014 and 2021.

On Dec. 13, 2022, Williams was indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of production of child pornography. A superseding indictment returned three weeks ago added an additional three counts of child pornography production and one count each of receipt and possession of child pornography. At 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, Williams was arraigned on the new federal charges before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerome Kearney.

At an 11 a.m. pretrial hearing, U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. denied a motion by Williams to merge the four counts of production of child pornography, citing congressional intent when that particular statute was passed into law.

Williams’ attorney, John Wesley Hall Jr. of Little Rock, argued that although there were four separate video files that formed the basis for the four separate counts, all four were from the same incident.

“The first one is a minute, 38 seconds,” Hall said. “The second on is 21 seconds, the third is eight-tenths of a second, and the fourth is a minute, 37 seconds.”

Although Marshall had already ruled against the motion, Hall asked to enter into the record that all four video files had been created within a seven-minute span of time.

“I’d like the 8th Circuit, if we get there,” he said, “to see the time period exactly.”

Marshall partially granted a government motion in liminie prohibiting a defense of mistake of age in the child pornography production counts but said on the issue of consent, he would “hold fire on the … issue.”

“It’s conceivable that some evidence about the victim’s willing participation could be relevant and admissible for other purposes,” Marshall wrote in an order filed on Friday. “This issue is better dealt with as the evidence comes in at trial.”

On Tuesday, Hall noted that “the person in Counts 1 through 4 was over the age of consent for sex but not for recording.”

The age of consent for sex in Arkansas is 16 years old but because there is no age for a person to legally consent to sexual exploitation, video recordings of sex acts involving minors older than 16 are considered child pornography.

“Am I prohibited even from asking the age of consent for the sex act but not for the recording?” Hall asked. “I think that’s pertinent but I don’t want to make it sound like I’m trying to mislead the jury either.”

“I don’t think it’s pertinent,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristin Bryant. “All that’s pertinent to the elements of Counts 1 through 4 is that the minor is under the age of 18.”

Allowing Hall to argue that the victim was over the age of consent for sex but, “the only reason we’re here now is because he recorded it,” she said, would be tantamount to jury nullification.

“The age of consent is not relevant,” Bryant said.

“It’s certainly true on the counts that 18 is the key age, there’s no doubt about that,” Marshall said. “I think the jurors are going to be interested in his age generally and they’re going to wonder about did he agree.”

“I think it’s very clear through case law that it doesn’t matter,” Bryant said. “Whether he agreed to it or not, a minor can’t consent to being sexually exploited.”

Hall said not making the distinction between the legal age of consent for sex in Arkansas and the legal age of majority could be confusing to jurors as to just what was being charged.

“Consent to a sex act and consent to photographing are two different things,” Hall said.

Bryant said during a text message exchange between Williams and a 17-year-old, Williams asked if he could record the encounter.

“The sole purpose of this was to produce a sexually explicit depiction,” she said. “They met one time and had sex. This was not to foster a relationship.”

Marshall said he would not close the door entirely on such a defense but said at least one 8th Circuit case had left open the possibility of such a video being produced for a purpose other than to produce child pornography.

“I think the defense is allowed to proceed down that road if the facts support it,” Marshall said. “I just don’t know enough at this point to say yes or no definitively.”

“I’d just ask that they stay away from it in opening,” Bryant said. “I think the facts are going to play out that the sole purpose of this was to produce a visual depiction and if Mr. Hall mentions in his opening that … they could legally have sex, we can’t unring that bell.”

Hall agreed not to bring the matter up during his opening statement.

Following the pre-trial hearing, jury selection began at just after noon and by 3 p.m., a jury of eight women, four men and one alternate had been selected and sworn in.

After giving the jurors initial instructions and cautioning them not to talk about the case, listen to or read any news reports, or do any research on their own, Marshall instructed the jury to return at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday for opening statements and the beginning of the government’s case.