SexCrimeDefender

Computer Sting in NH

From the Manchester Union Leader

MERRIMACK – Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and Hillsborough County officials announced yesterday that 12 men have been charged with approaching children online and seeking intimate relationships.

The Southern Hillsborough County Cybersafe Task Force was developed eight months ago to engage online predators who start up conversations with children and then ask them for sexually explicit pictures or Web-cam images or seek to meet in person.

"Kids today think nothing of placing images on the Web," Ayotte said. "We need to convince them to be careful when using cell-phone technology and social networking sites."

Ayotte said Gov. John Lynch has requested that a special prosecutor for cyber crimes be appointed.

Officials said that the proliferation of technology, digital cameras, cell-phone cameras, Web-cam, and social networking sites in virtually every home has escalated the possibility of contacts between child predators and children.

"The policy of the task force is that we don't initiate conversations, and still the number of propositions is overwhelming," said Merrimack Master-Patrolman Theodore Dillon, who is part of the ongoing sting operation.

Ayotte said that technology has significantly changed the way that child crimes are perpetrated. There has also been a paradigm shift in the way children are socially interacting that can lead to dangerous and unexpected consequences, she said.

Ayotte said about one in seven children between 10 and 17 have been directly targeted online.

Can't posess child porn-and can't destroy it either?

Crime and Federalism reports on a new landmine for the ethical attorney:

And what of the prosecution of Greenwich attorney Phil Russell? He faces felony charges for violation of a new penal code making it a crime to alter or destroy evidence in contemplation of a federal investigation. This provision of Sarbanes-Oxley makes it easier to prosecute destruction of evidence by eliminating the prior requirement that the evidence destroyed be closely related to a federal investigation actually taking place.

Russell represented a Greenwich church. An employee of the church was found to be viewing child pornography on a church computer. Apparently, Russell counseled firing the employee. That was done. Then Russell destroyed the computer so that images on it could not be retrieved. The newspaper headlines screamed that Russell had destroyed evidence in a child porn case.

This may be the first test of the new statute, 18 U.S.C. 1519, against a lawyer counseling a client. Whether the statute survives a vagueness challenge is an open question.

Megan's Law in NJ

Corrections Sentencing has a report on efforts to evaluate the uniformity of application of Megan's Law in that state (as opposed to effectiveness).

New DOJ Anti-Porn Task Force

From the Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - Maybe, from now on, the girls will be a little less wild, thanks to Brent Ward.
    Ward, who was among the most strident adversaries of the porn industry as U.S. Attorney in Utah in the 1980s, is heading a new Justice Department task force aimed at enforcing federal obscenity laws.
. . .

"We're not going to prosecute it away, but it's important, I think, that Americans see their government trying to do something about it," he said. The task force, with a total of four prosecutors, 10 FBI agents and a postal inspector, has the job of putting together cases that can be prosecuted by U.S. attorneys in various states. It's a bid to revive obscenity prosecution, Ward said, after a dormant period in the Clinton administration, which coincided with an explosion of Internet pornography. "To me, it was clearly a big mistake," Ward said. "Vigorous action, when Internet dissemination of pornography was growing and still in its infancy might have had a significant deterrent effect and we might not be where we are now." Estimates on the size of the porn industry range from $4 billion to $12 billion, and the Internet has made it more accessible, although a recent University of California-Berkeley study said only 1 percent of Web sites contain pornographic material. Nonetheless, Ward says most obscenity cases today are Internet-related, and the content is more extreme than when he was a Utah prosecutor building a reputation fighting magazine and mail-order video distributors. "Back in the '80s, Brent was one of the two or three prosecutors willing to take on pornography," said Robert Peters, of the group Morality In Media. In a case Ward says opened his eyes to pornography's harm, he battled "dial-a-porn" phone sex lines that allowed children to make countless calls to hear explicit material. And he essentially closed the last two X-rated theaters in Utah after convicting their owner on tax charges.

Restriction Backlash

Via the 13th Floor (with a Hat Tip to Corrections Sentencing) links to more state pushback against the rising tide of sex offender restrictions.

As Josh Goodman notes on 13th Floor

But, from a political perspective, is it possible to vote in a way that an opponent could portray as favoring sex offenders and not have it come back to haunt you at the next election? These lawmakers seem intent on finding out, which makes them courageous, foolish, or both.

Julie Amero Update

Via Crime and Federalism

W. Herbert Horner, a defense witness and computer expert, was prepared to testify that the images appeared on the screen as a result of the acts of others. However, the trial court judge, Hillary Strackbein, did not permit him to offer his opinion. Why? He was not disclosed as an expert in a timely fashion. Judge Strackbein's ruling may well be an abuse of discretion. Ordinarily, the defense need not disclose witnesses prior to trial. Indeed, in one recent case regarding the late disclosure of an alibi, the Appellate Court ruled it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to permit the witness to testify. Of course, Ms. Amero's ace in the hole in this case is a habeas corpus petition. If a reviewing court upholds the conviction, then her trial counsel will have to answer why he failed to disclose his expert in a timely way. No strategy supports that decision.

Thanks also for pointing out that the Norwich Bulletin has reprinted the entire trial transcript broken down into major trial phases and individual witnesses.

I agree that the defense may have really screwed up if they did not disclose their expert report in whatever constitutes a "timely manner" under Connecticut law.  That said, the facts cited in the above article may present some additional difficulties if a reviewing court looks at the exclusion as "harmless error" as it appears that there were other logical (if tenuous) bases to find Julie guilty.  My own opinion,based on the transcript and public reports is that the exclusion of the defense report constitutes an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and, as long as any objection to the exclusion of the expert was properly preserved, that a reviewing court will have difficulty saying that it was "harmless error" given the centrality of the technical stuff to the case.

USA Today has an editorial by Andrew Kantor entitled

Police, school get failing grade in sad case of Julie Amero

Child Endangerment Law Updated

From the Boston Herald:

Silent witness to rape skates: Gets year after allowing assault on girl, 9

There does not appear to be a misprision of felony statute in Massachusetts.

Stratford, NH Teacher Arraigned

From the Manchester Union Leader

STRATFORD – The former Stratford Public School teacher charged earlier this month with more than a dozen sexual assault charges against one of his students has waived his probable cause hearing this week. Kelly Johnston, 39, had taught math and science to sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders at the school for more than three years. He turned himself into state police investigators on Feb. 15, following an investigation into a 13-year-old girl's allegations of an improper sexual relationship last December. Johnston was charged with 15 misdemeanor counts of sexual assault and one felony charge of sexual assault, for incidents that allegedly happened in the classroom, when he drove the student to her home and while they were on a field trip.

NH sex charge against teen trying to meet teen

From the Manchester Union Leader

DURHAM – Police arrested a high school teenager Sunday for allegedly using the Internet to try to lure a 14-year-old boy, who turned out to be an undercover Keene police officer, into having sex. Dana Berlin, 17, of 4 Shearwater St., in Durham, is charged with attempted felonious sexual assault and certain use of computers prohibited. Each count is a class B felony punishable by 3 1/2 to 7 years in prison. Police say Berlin posed as a 14-year-old boy online and found the Keene officer, who he believed was another 14-year-old boy. The two carried on a two-month online relationship in which police say Berlin exchanged lewd photos of himself and ultimately hoped to have sex.

USA Today On Sex Offender Restrictions

Sex Offender Issues, Sentencing Law & Policy and Sex Crimes all led me to the same great USA Today article on some dissenting voices, from sometimes unusual quarters, in the national rush to "protect the children" from sex offenders.  USA Today has a great table of current sex offender restrictions (other than registration and local ordinances) here, and excerpted below.

State	Type of restriction
Alabama	Offenders can't work or live within 2,000 feet of schools, child care facilities.
Arkansas	Serious offenders can't live within 2,000 feet of schools, day care centers.
California	Those released since Nov. 7 may not live within 2,000 feet of schools, parks, other places where kids gather.
Florida	Offenders who've hurt minors can't live within 1,000 feet of where kids gather.
Georgia	Offenders can't live, work or loiter within 1,000 feet of where kids gather.
Idaho	Offenders can't live or loiter within 500 feet of school with kids under age 18.
Illinois	Offenders of children can't live within 500 feet of a school.
Indiana	Violent offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of a school, public park or youth program center.
Iowa	Offenders can't live within 2,000 feet of school or child care facility.
Kentucky	Offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of school, child care facility, ball fields and playgrounds.
Louisiana	Serious offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of schools or related activities, including school buses.
Maryland	Parole commission restricts registrants from living or loitering near places used mostly by kids where feasible.
Minnesota	Parole commissioner decides whether serious offenders may live within 1,500 feet of school zones.
Mississippi	Offenders can't live within 1,500 feet of school or child care facility.
Missouri	Offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of school or child care facility.
Montana	Judges can bar offender of children from living near schools, churches, parks and day care centers.
Nebraska	Offenders can't live within 500 feet of schools or child care facilities.
New York	Serious offenders can't enter school grounds or facilities caring for kids.
Ohio	Offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of schools, child care facilities or places kids gather.
Oklahoma	Offenders can't live within 2,000 feet of schools, day care centers or parks.
Oregon	Department of Corrections decides where offenders may live.
South Dakota	Offenders can't live or loiter within 500 feet of community safety zones.
Tennessee	Offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of schools, child care facilities or their victims.
Texas	State Parole Board decides where offenders may live or go.
Virginia	Some offenders can't loiter within 100 feet of schools or child care centers.
Washington	High-risk offenders can't live within 880 feet of schools or day care centers.
West Virginia	Offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of schools or child care facilities.