Whether a valid waiver of appellate rights occurred is a question of law that courts will review de novo. The question in this case is whether Defendant “knowingly and expressly” waived any and all rights to appeal his conviction and sentence, except for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The conditions of probation prohibited Defendant from possessing sexually explicit material – including child pornography, accessing the internet or electronic devices without permission, using nonapproved social media or chat websites, and consuming alcohol or drugs. A standard condition of probation for child pornography-related crimes required Defendant to “submit at any time to an unannounced visit and/or search of the offender’s person, vehicle or premises by the agent/designee.”
In Child Pornography Cases Indirect Evidence Can Lead to Conviction. The defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for production of child pornography. The defendant argues that while the minor victim testified Ashford requested and she sent sexually explicit pictures of herself to his Facebook Messenger account, no direct evidence showed he actually sent and received those communications.
Expert testimony can play an important part in child pornography cases. In this case, the defendant contends that the prosecution’s expert lacked the qualifications necessary to provide an expert opinion as to identity-based upon the comparison of finger and knuckle creases as shown in the two sets of photos. The defendant claims that the government’s expert instead used a generic method unreliable for the comparison of finger and knuckle creases.
Defendant argued that the hearsay statement contains sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible.
In child pornography cases, the determination of indigency is a determination for the district court to make in the first instance, in light of true facts, and is subject to review for clear error.
A statement is involuntary when it is extracted by threats, violence, or express or implied promises sufficient to overbear the defendant’s will and critically impair his capacity for self-determination. There are several factors used to determine voluntariness of statements in child pornography cases.
The case relates to that defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant alleged that he had been taking medications with side effects that interfered with his ability to make a knowing and intelligent plea.
The district court imposed a 5-year probationary period, and in concluding that the defendant posed a physical danger to children, the district court relied on inferences unsupported by the record and facts that bear only on the risk that he might seek out child pornography in the future.
Does the Video Support Self-DefenseFebruary 8, 2022 - 10:33 am
Erica Weighs in on Opening StatementsFebruary 4, 2022 - 2:32 pm
What You Need to Know About Reverse WarrantsNovember 28, 2021 - 3:07 pm
P2P File Sharing Can Lead to TroubleAugust 28, 2021 - 11:58 am
What You Need to Know About Cyber TipsAugust 28, 2021 - 11:26 am
2560 S. Glenstone Ave., Suite C
Springfield, MO 65804
Phone: 417-831-6363
Fax: 417-831-7373
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisement.