In affirming the district court’s ruling, the court emphasized the role of reasonable suspicion, the public safety exception to Miranda, and the establishment of probable cause, thereby providing crucial clarifications on these key legal aspects.
To determine whether a downward variance was appropriate in child pornography cases, the court will apply the approach proposed by the United States Sentencing Commission in Chapter 12(C) of its 2012 Child Pornography Report to “differentiate between offenders based on the content of the pornography at issue.”
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.
- Sweat Patch Testing on Supervised Release: Examining U.S. v. BonaparteNovember 21, 2023 - 11:04 am
- Fourth Amendment Protections: Examining reasonable suspicion, the Miranda warning exception, and search warrant validityJune 13, 2023 - 9:45 am
- False Leads & Unreasonable Searches: Examining US v Riccy WellsJune 9, 2023 - 2:34 pm
- Defense Attorney Mynarich Discusses Stepmom Murder Trial: Defense Struggles to Find Value in Testimony as Prosecution Builds Case for PremeditationMay 9, 2023 - 9:13 am
- Does the Video Support Self-DefenseFebruary 8, 2022 - 10:33 am
2560 S. Glenstone Ave., Suite C
Springfield, MO 65804
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisement.