United States of America v. Bryce Lucas Stimka

Salt Lake City, Utah, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with producing child pornography, receiving child pornography, and enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity.



In July 2024, Stimka (who was twenty-three years old) began an online

relationship via Snapchat with a fourteen-year-old girl in Utah. Over roughly the

next nine months, Stimka and the girl exchanged numerous sexually explicit photos,

videos, and texts. The relationship ended in March 2025 when the girl's parents

discovered the secret cell phone through which she had been communicating with

Appellate Case: 25-4125 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 11/18/2025 Page: 2

3

Stimka. A grand jury indicted Stimka in June 2025 based on this conduct and Stimka

was arrested the following month.

Applying the Bail Reform Act standards, a magistrate judge ordered Stimka

detained. In a written order, the magistrate judge concluded Stimka had met his

burden of production to rebut the presumption of detention but the government had

nonetheless carried its burden to show Stimka was a community danger.

Stimka appealed to the district court. Regarding his burden to rebut the

presumption of detention by producing "some evidence” that his appearance could be

assured and that he would not be a danger to the community, Stricklin, 932 F.2d at

1355, Stimka offered the following to the district court:

Criminal history. Mr. Stimka has no criminal history.

Community ties. Mr. Stimka has strong ties to Carson City,

Nevada, and the District of Nevada, where he intends to

live if released. He grew up in Carson City and lived there

until he enlisted in the Navy in 2021.

Family ties. Most of Mr. Stimka's immediate family lives

in Carson City. His wife is there (with her parents for the

time being). His father and brother are there. If released,

Mr. Stimka would live with his grandmother, Sandra

Danforth. Ms. Danforth lives alone, and Mr. Stimka would

have no unsupervised contact with minors at her residence.

Employment. Mr. Stimka served in the Navy with

distinction from 2021 to 2025. He cannot return to his

position with the Navy, but he has employment prospects.

On information and belief, he can work with his father at a

warehouse job.

Aplt. App. vol. II at 52 (footnote omitted). Stimka further noted that he "doesn't

have significant financial resources or a passport,” and "has no recent history of

substance abuse.” Id. at 53.

Appellate Case: 25-4125 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 11/18/2025 Page: 3

4

The district court held a hearing where it heard argument about these matters.

Much of the argument focused on whether Stimka's alleged criminal behavior ended

when the relationship with the victim ended. At the conclusion of the hearing, the

district court announced its decision as follows:

THE COURT: These are very serious charges. I guess I'm

not convinced that there's been enough time to suggest that

he's moved on. I think he could still be a danger to the

community, and so I find that you've not rebutted the

presumption.

MR. BRIDGE [defense counsel]: Just to clarify, Your

Honor, for purposes of appeal: Are you saying we didn't

meet our burden of production?

THE COURT: You didn't—you didn't rebut the

presumption of incarceration. There's a rebuttable

presumption—it's presumed that he'll be incarcerated

that's rebuttable. I'm saying—

MR. BRIDGE: I'm sorry. My follow-up question, Your

Honor, again, just to preserve the record here—

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. BRIDGE: —is we have a burden of production not

persuasion. Are you saying that the evidence that we've

proffered today does not meet the burden of production?

THE COURT: Yes.

Reversed and remanded.