How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

Re:How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography pr... by SeanDav on Thursday April 07, 2016 @02:58AM (#11445260)

If the evidence was planted, then the jury most certainly did not return the correct verdict.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography pr... by Filligree on Thursday April 07, 2016 @08:00AM (#11446526)

Legally? I wonder. Morally you're right, but if mere possession is illegal, then I don't see how it being planted matters.

If it were proven that law-enforcement agents did the planting, that would be a different matter. You could also argue about the definition of "possession", maybe... but IANAL.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography pr... by voxic11 on Thursday April 07, 2016 @08:21AM (#11446640)

Of course it matters. Federal law specifies that the CP must be knowingly possessed. If it was planted that requirement cannot be met. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography pr... by upofadown on Thursday April 07, 2016 @09:02AM (#11446868)

The court can't read the mind of the accused. So either there is an implied level of guilt associated with mere possession or it would be impossible to ever get a conviction under that part of the law.

I now agree that the "they planted it" defence would work but in practice that would be impossible to prove, which was probably what happened here.

[ Parent | on HN ]