I certainly can' t speak for the US laws on this but in Canada a judge can only do certain things
Order that a copy of the contraband images be given to the court,
Order that the images be removed from the computer system,
Order that information be provided to enable the identification of and locate the party posting the images.
Order for forfeiture to Her Majesty and disposal by the AG.
Order for return on acquital or a succesful challenge to the forfeiture order.
So I read your cite and I have a ?
Page three, right hand side, at the top.
I'm particularly interested in the US vs Knellinger The court ruled that the defense was entitled to counsel was entitled to a mirror image copy of the defendants HDD as the exorbitant.
Can you explain this a bit more.
This is from the source (BOLD added for emphasis) signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006’’.
SEC. 504. PREVENTION OF DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
USED AS EVIDENCE IN PROSECUTIONS.
Section 3509 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following
‘‘(m) PROHIBITION ON REPRODUCTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.—
‘‘(1) In any criminal proceeding, any property or material
that constitutes child pornography (as defined by section 2256
of this title) shall remain in the care, custody, and control
of either the Government or the court.
‘‘(2)(A) Notwithstanding Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, a court shall deny, in any criminal proceeding,
any request by the defendant to copy, photograph,
duplicate, or otherwise reproduce any property or material that
constitutes child pornography (as defined by section 2256 of
this title), so long as the Government makes the property
or material reasonably available to the defendant.
‘‘(B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), property or
material shall be deemed to be reasonably available to the
defendant if the Government provides ample opportunity for
inspection, viewing, and examination at a Government facility
of the property or material by the defendant, his or her
attorney, and any individual the defendant may seek to qualify
to furnish expert testimony at trial.’’.
http//
Also note the following in an Opinion from the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT dated January 19, 2011
The question presented—do the federal child pornography laws exempt those who violate the law in the course of providing expert testimony?—implicates three statutory provisions.
No. 09-4281 Doe et al. v. Boland Page 5
The first provision establishes the standard of care. It says
Any person who . . . knowingly possesses, or knowingly
accesses with intent to view, any . . . computer disk, or
any other material that contains an image of child
pornography . . . that was produced using materials that
have been mailed, or shipped or transported in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means,
including by computer . . . shall be punished as provided
in subsection (b).
Note The other two provisions pertained to civil penalties and have not been cited in this post. They are available in their entirety at the link at the bottom of this post.
And follows
Nor do reasonable limits on defense counsel’s access to the child pornography at issue in a criminal case, whether old or new, raise constitutional concerns. In United States v. Paull, the defendant argued that the absence of an exception in § 2252A for his counsel to possess child pornography violated his right to a fair trial. 551 F.3d 516, 524 (6th Cir. 2009). Noting that the defendant had made “no allegations that the government used the law to disrupt his defense,” we disagreed. Id. at 525. The defendant “could have worked with the district court and the government to ensure that he could put on the defense he wanted. But he chose not to.” Id.; see also United States v. McNealy, 625 F.3d 858, 868 (5th Cir. 2010) (restrictions on a defense expert’s ability to possess child pornography do not violate the fair trial rights of defendant); United States v. Shrake, 515 F.3d 743, 745–46 (7th Cir. 2008) (the Walsh Act does not violate a defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights).
And follows
In State v. Brady, the defendant argued that the absence of an exemption for possessing these kinds of images in the federal child pornography laws precluded him from receiving a fair trial in state court on state law child pornography charges and required dismissal of the case. 894 N.E.2d at 677. The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed, holding that it was “axiomatic that an expert’s conduct must conform to the law.” Id. at 679.
http//
…I'm particularly interested in the US vs Knellinger The court ruled that the defense was entitled to counsel was entitled to a mirror image copy of the defendants HDD as the exorbitant.
Can you explain this a bit more.
I explain U.S. v. Knellinger as simply, that court got it wrong.
Why shouldn't the defence have an oppertunity to examine the evidence?
Why shouldn't the defence have an oppertunity to examine the evidence?
They aren't restricted from examining it they just can't possess it.
Why do you keep delaying what you said you would do.
All the PM's to various people and the 4 pm's from you to me saying
"call your boss" "your boss wants to talk to me" "call you on your cell and stop being an internet gangster?"
You said you were going to provide the wording from the order, please do that.
You've heard the law, and your reply was to question one cite out of the whole document.
I just can't understand why the previous post from you wasn't a cut and paste of language, it just clouds things more and more.
So I read your cite and I have a ?
Page three, right hand side, at the top.
I'm particularly interested in the US vs Knellinger The court ruled that the defense was entitled to counsel was entitled to a mirror image copy of the defendants HDD as the exorbitant.
Can you explain this a bit more.
armresl,
Regardless of the underlying issues involved here, I'm going to ask you again to moderate your tone when using these forums. By all means discuss the issues raised but I don't want to see any one person publicly harangued.
Jamie
Oh and let's be clear I don't possess anything like you say. Never have. It's my boss that has it.
(Emphasis and proofreading mine)
To quote the Princess Bride I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I think that this started as concern for Josh's well-being because a conviction for possession of CEM is going to ruin your life, and "my boss said" isn't what those of us with a lot of experience would accept as a justification. To put this into context for you, one state's police forensic team in Australia stopped doing all CEM exams for a while back around '03 because under the law at the time, their authority was insufficient. Let me repeat that, the COPS didn't do child abuse exams because they didn't have legal cover.
Now it may be that you have full cover. I just hope that you have seen the order yourself.