Child Porn Legal Case

Factual Questions
1

Need some help with this one.

I am looking for a cite on a case.

A couple of kids in high school or just graduated. The boy is just over 18 and the girl is just under. They have been dating most of high school. The girl, on a lark, decides she would like to take pictures of them having sex. Somehow these pictures wind up in the hands of the law (I think she forgot they were on the film and the developer turned them in). The boy ends up doing long years for Child Porn. Neither the girl or her parents pressed charges. This was stricty the State v.s…

This happened, but when I try to find in an internet search… well, you don’t even wanna know what sights come up. So, if anyone knows a name or city or anything on this it would be appreciatated.

2

This kid was also going to be required to register as a sex offender any where he lived for the rest of his life.

This has to be one of the ultimate shaftings.

A completely case of the “letter of the law” instead of the “spririt of the law”.

3

Something along the lines happened in North alabama last year. or maybe in 2000.

The girl was 16 the boyfriend was 18. In alabama 16 is AOC (Age of Consent) Yet, Consent to be in “Adult” movies or pictures is 17 here. Sorry cant real more. The state did press charges what they were I cannot recall.

Hope that helps.

4

Erm, thanks for the help, but EVERY criminal case is “State v…” (or “People v…”), so that doesn’t help. Odds are extremely low that you’re going to find anything. If it wasn’t appealed, it won’t even rise on the law sites’ radar. And I doubt that CNN.com is gonna pick this one up.

BTW, Technically, IF the 18-year-old was in possession of pics of a 17-year-old in flagrante delicto, then that could be child porn, depending on how the state statute is written.

5

Truly amazing.

6

[sup]psst…rule number 1: don’t be a jerk[/sup]

7

Ok, what I meant was the “victim of the crime” and even the family of the “victim” did not charges pressed. They all emphatically wanted the charges dropped.

I also remember now that the pictures were taken in conjuction with their senior prom.

The reason I thought people might be able to help was, it made the news as a rediculous item several times. 60 minutes, or some such, did a piece on it to show how the law gets missapplied sometimes.

I was hoping someone would remember enough to put me on to an article about it.

If I remember correctly, he was charge and convicted of making child porn. This, even though there was less than a calendar year difference in their ages.

8

The federal law criminalizing the use of children in sexuall explicit works does not only target those over 18. If a 14 year-old filmed his 15-year-old girlfriend in sexually explicit conduct, he’d be in violation of federal law.

Prosecutors are vested with enormous discretion in cases like these, however. For this reason, the law is generally enforced more vigorously against the real bad guys, and less vigorously against persons such as the one described in the OP.

That said, however, minors have no constitutional right to take sexually explicit pictures of each other. Minors cannot consent to having such pictures taken. In fact, minors have no constitutional right to engage in sexual activity with each other, and cannot consent to sexual activity unless their state law permits them to do so.

Even if state law permits a person younger than 18 to consent to sexual activity, federal law may criminalize someone else crossing a state line to engage in such activity. And in all cases, federal law prohibits a minor’s appearance in visual depictions of such ativity.

  • Rick
9

Bricker: Your mention of prosecutor discretion is exactly why everyone thought this was such a screw job.

I don’t think anyone could think the law was written to be applied to a case like this.

Well, I guess, at least “someone” must have thought so… But, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

10

Well, the facts as outlined in the OP are insufficient, as a matter of law, to charge the boy with anything. So I assume there is more to the story, undoubtedly contained within the “…somehow, they ended up in the hands of the law…” phrase.

Without knowing what else went on, I’m disinclined to scream at how the case was handled unreasonably.

  • Rick
11

Exactly.

I can’t remember all the details. That is why I am hoping someone will remember enough detail for me to look it up.

I saw several mentions of this on TV, and all presented this as a screw job. That was how it was characterized on TV.

This came up in an off board discussion and I was hoping someone would remember it from the detail given and point me a real news article.

12

Perhaps:
http://www.findlaw.com/ ?

13

To all-

I apologize if what I said was jerky, or interpretted as such. I misread the OP, and was far too flip. FWIW, I meant no offense.

To the question(s) -

Findlaw may help, but it may be difficult to limit the search to a useful number given the facts provided (which, I think, was mentioned by the OP). More importantly, if it wasn’t appealed, the odds are VERY low that it made a court reporter. Trials almost never have written opinions, and absent one of those, no reporter service will touch it. It may have been appealed, but again, if it wasn’t argued on appeal, there’s no opinion to publish.

I also fear that this may be difficult to find since I have heard stories very similar to stories I’ve heard for many years (the first time I can recall was in 1983).

OTOH, if it made 60 Minutes, there’s hope. Not to start anything further, but it has been my experience that 60 Miinutes should not be relied upon to give every detail, especially ones that might turn a good story into a ho-hum one. I must reserve “ultimate shafting” judgment. I don’t doubt that it COULD have happened, just that it is more likely that something is missing from this picture. I do wish you luck in your search, tho’.

To the underlying question…

It is possible for a case to go forward without the support of the “victim.” Sometimes this is a good thing. Domestic violence cases often go forward after the victim recants. Some prosecutors prefer it this way, since the victim cannot be accused of pressing charges out of spite. It also makes questioning her easier, since the DA can then merely impeach her recantation with her statements to the police, which often are more damning than whatever the victim could say on the stand.

IIRC, possessing or making child porn is not a function of the age of the possessor or maker. It is solely based on the age of the subject. The way most laws are written, even if the owner was underage as well, then he would be guilty of child porn.

Hope this clarifies things…

-Redhawke
Occasionally living up to his sig…

14

handy: thanks for the tip… so far no luck there, but I’ll play with it some more.

R.t.B: No problem. And I agree, even by the way the law was explained in the show, the kid WAS guilty. No doubt about it. Where I thought the screw job happened was in the way the law was written that it would snare this kid. I don’t think the people writing the law ever meant for it to be applied this way. Seems like somebody along the way might have thought prosecuting this one really wasn’t necessary.

Hopefully I will find reference to it and get all the info.