Evidence classification for inappropriate material

You might call NCMEC and ask them if there is a National Standard.

You might also try and ask someone at the National District Attorney's Association. http//www.ndaa.org/

Right now I just use terms like Teens, Children (meaning 12 and under) simulated acts and full penetration. That will usually give them an idea.

Please let us know if you find something out.

Cheers!

The first thought that comes to mind is the scale of 1-10, 10 being the most graphic "pictures & videos" you've seen before or in the case. Can they preview the files? Maybe have them preview the pictures and videos that rank as a "10" in that case.

Of course, you have to keep the people asking in mind… I'm sure they don't see this on a daily basis like we do. Something we've seen 100 times might be incredibly new and horrible to them.

Also, the scale of 1-10 is found in other professions such as medical. I'm sure most people have been to an ER before lol Oh my!! 11! 11!!

You could use something like the COPINE scale if dealing with child images. Could be adapted quite easily to deal with adult images.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale

The easiest analogy for what they are talking about, at least from my vantage point, and I've done several hundred of these on the "we have rights" side, is the old days of X XX and XXX films X was just basic pron, XX was a bit harder and XXX was anything goes. They are looking for some indicator on how hard it will be for the average person/juror to view this. How bad is it being, if I show this to the average person will they be vomiting, wincing, or just looking at it and passing it to the next juror.

Are there image content classifications as to how "severe" or "inappropriate" something may be?

I have attorneys asking "how bad are the pictures & videos" . . . that is they want me to draft a scale of sort.

They are looking for a quantifiable solution.

I have some ideas, and possibly can also pull some verbiage from TV/Game classifications, but I would like to read how you would deal with something like this.

In the UK, the definition of "extreme" porn images was written in to law

Section 63

They are looking for some indicator on how hard it will be for the average person/juror to view this. How bad is it being, if I show this to the average person will they be vomiting, wincing, or just looking at it and passing it to the next juror.

You're 100% right and it's a shame that Defense Attorney's are allowed to try and argue that the evidence might be "prejudicial." If that is what their client is into then all the kings horses and all the kings men won't be putting them back together again. These are truly broken individuals and I believe the jury should see every image. I'll stand by with a mop if necessary. D

I have noticed that your point on most issues is LE favorable, and my opinion is Rights favorable. I don't care if it's LE or Defense there are rights. If a defendant is in custody and everything was done properly, all the paperwork was correctly done, and the investigation was handled properly, I can do little except mitigation. You think that every image should be paraded in front of every jury and Judge and I'm telling you 100% that it's prejudicial and why in the world would you as LE want to risk a retrial with anything prejudicial?

And as I've said many times, you want these rules until it happens to someone you love, care about, or know, then you don't want those things paraded. This can be applied to CP as most will say no one they know will look at things like this, but you can apply that to any law, rule, or crime. But for the day you hcso1510 get pulled over and someone notices the smell of marijuana (even though you don't do that) or whatever is used to inventory your vehicle and that friend you had in the car earlier had some drugs or something they left in your car, then let me know what you think about all the kings men and the mop. I'll await you saying you want rights then and where is my expert to help me with my case, where is the union so I can say I didn't do this, it was someone else.

What do I know, I've only done a few hundred of these and seen juries and Judges looks and after being polled hear their reasons and what was going through their heads, reasoning goes out the window, mitigating factors and defense goes out the window as the prosecutors are allowed 30 sec per picture and show 100 of them. Many of the same picture more than one time as it was a pic and a thumbs.db No one listens under cross because they are still disgusted from the pictures, and God forbid if the Defense shoots the LE credibility for doing something like you mentioned in your post where you called the cop an Idiot. It doesn't matter because under redirect subtle comments are made again to bring it to the forefront again.

They are looking for some indicator on how hard it will be for the average person/juror to view this. How bad is it being, if I show this to the average person will they be vomiting, wincing, or just looking at it and passing it to the next juror.

You're 100% right and it's a shame that Defense Attorney's are allowed to try and argue that the evidence might be "prejudicial." If that is what their client is into then all the kings horses and all the kings men won't be putting them back together again. These are truly broken individuals and I believe the jury should see every image. I'll stand by with a mop if necessary. D

Try the SAP scale http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale#The_SAP_scale

There doesn't need to be a scale like that as there is information within the charging range which allows for naked, solo, inclusion of other persons, etc.

In regards to something like the copine scale, a few of the items listed aren't even chargeable, others are discretionary at best.

Try the SAP scale http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale#The_SAP_scale