« Notable UK court ruling on human rights attack on sex offender registry | Main | "Becoming Justice Stevens: How and Why Some Justices Evolve" »

April 21, 2010

Interesting report on long state sentence for child porn offense

At the same time I have been following closely the debates and controversies over long child porn offense sentence in the federal system, I have been wondering how (and how many) such cases are handled at the state level.  On that front, I found interesting this local story from Florida headlined "Gibsonton man gets 55 years in child porn case."  Here are the details:

A Gibsonton man arrested in a sting in which he thought he was going to have sex with a 12-year-old mentally challenged girl was sentenced today to 55 years in prison. Deputies found thousands of photographs and videos of child pornography on the computer of Carl M. Cocking, 37.

Prosecutors said it was the longest prison term ever handed down in Hillsborough County for downloading child porn. "Every time these images are made, a child has been raped, a child has been victimized and a child has lost its innocence," Hillsborough Circuit Judge Chet A. Tharpe said in imposing sentence. "It has to be stopped."

The sentence was the maximum Tharpe could mete out under a five-page plea bargain Cocking worked out with prosecutors. He was charged with using a computer to solicit child pornography, two counts of attempted lewd and lascivious battery, and 45 counts of possessing more than 10 images of child pornography.

Cocking faced 1,300 years under state law, but prosecutors said 55 years was the maximum sentence under state sentencing guidelines.

Prosecutors took the rare approach of showing some of the images to Tharpe before sentencing. Assistant State Attorney Rita Peters said it was the first time she had done so. The screen was placed so only Tharpe, the lawyers and a detective could see it. The images included the rape of a 2-year-old who cried for her mother during the attack.

"It is beyond my wildest dream that you would watch that and get sexual satisfaction," Tharpe told Cocking. "Thank God the detectives caught you before you acted out because you were going to act out." Tharpe remained visibly upset afterward....

Cocking's lawyers sought to lessen his sentence, saying he has been in constant outpatient therapy since being released on bail and that he didn't flee. Peters said she took the step of showing the images to Tharpe so he could understand the degree of Cocking's depravity. "He needed to be incarcerated," she said.

April 21, 2010 at 08:26 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20134800a3edf970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Interesting report on long state sentence for child porn offense:

Comments

"Prosecutors took the rare approach of showing some of the images to Tharpe before sentencing. Assistant State Attorney Rita Peters said it was the first time she had done so. The screen was placed so only Tharpe, the lawyers and a detective could see it. The images included the rape of a 2-year-old who cried for her mother during the attack."

Remind me never again to think, "This is the most disgusting thing imaginable." There's always tomorrow's news.

"Cocking's lawyers sought to lessen his sentence, saying he has been in constant outpatient therapy since being released on bail and that he didn't flee."

I see that rules against bad comedy continue to impose no limit on what some defense lawyers will say.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 21, 2010 11:28:10 PM

Talk about bad comedy, the judge said this was beyond his wildest dream? That's not a statement I would reserve for said situation, more like "It is unimaginable and reprehensible" would have been a better choice of the words. And just a question, but by viewing said materials, are not the people involved in this case also guilty of viewing kiddie pornography? The crime is viewing it, and the judge and prosecutors also did so.. would they also not be guilty of the same crime? I mean, when someone is tried for murder, you see the evidence involved, but the Judge does not commit a similar act to see how horrible it was... why do the people involved look at the images without penalty when that is the same crime this guy got arrested for? It may be a simplistic argument, but we have no proof deep down that the other people who viewed this did not also get the same sick satisfaction from seeing it.

Posted by: tbucket | Apr 22, 2010 11:01:35 AM

tbucket --

1. How would you suggest that a prosecution be brought where the prosecutors don't look at the evidence?

2. "It may be a simplistic argument, but we have no proof deep down that the other people who viewed this did not also get the same sick satisfaction from seeing it."

One generally does not impute guilt without, you know, some reason. But putting that entirely to one side, why should this defendant get a lesser sentence EVEN ASSUMING others in the case got the "satisfaction" you mindlessly ascribe to them? What has that to do with the defendant's culpability?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 22, 2010 11:14:56 AM

And just a question, but by viewing said materials, are not the people involved in this case also guilty of viewing kiddie pornography?

Oh, come on. It’s a bit like arguing that when the police confiscate an illegal drug, they are guilty of illegal drug possession. I suppose you would also have to charge the lab analyst who tests the drug to determine if it is, in fact, illegal.

Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Apr 22, 2010 12:10:04 PM

Marc. That analogy is not apposite. It's close but not exact; the differences matter. No one believes that the mere possession of an illegal drug gives you a high. You don't get high just from looking at the leaves of the marijuana plant. With child porn, on the other hand, that is exactly what we do believe. We believe that a person gets sexually stimulated *just by looking at it*. So your analogy is erroneous.

Bill says, "One generally does not impute guilt without, you know, some reason." Except, with child porn, merely possessing the pictures is enough to impute guilt. There is no requirement that the government prove the defendant had a guilty mind, was sexually stimulated, or any such thing. Actual possession is enough.

As for your second point, stop inventing straw men. Neither tbucket nor myself is making the argument that the defendant in this case should be pulled down to the judges level. We are instead mere saying the judge should be pulled up to the defendants level because, you know, they are *engaged in the exact same criminal behavior*.

Posted by: Daniel | Apr 22, 2010 3:05:21 PM

Im really more concerned that many other cases, in federal level, people with thousand's of images, are all counted within 1-2 count's of posession, where as, in this case, there are 45 charges of CP. Many cases, I can cite (By appellate opinion), has an example like this.

But he should be lucky for the sentence. He was about to physically involve a child in his fantasy, and harm him/her, so yup.

Posted by: N/A | Apr 22, 2010 3:21:16 PM

"He was about to physically involve a child in his fantasy, and harm him/her, so yup."

Ah yes, another Nostradamus.

Posted by: Daniel | Apr 22, 2010 4:19:04 PM

Making it a crime to look at something (anything) does invite questions such as tbucket's.

It's difficult to imagine the threshold for criminalizing conduct getting much lower.

Posted by: John K | Apr 22, 2010 4:47:57 PM

John K --

"Making it a crime to look at something (anything) does invite questions such as tbucket's."

What invites such questions is deliberate obtuseness, nothing more.

But while we're wondering what invites this and that, what invites a defense lawyer to argue that the client deserves leniency because he "didn't flee"?

Finally, one need not have a particularly low threshhold for making behavior criminal to understand why a country with a grain of decency would make it illegal to watch vile and disgusting things such as the material involved in here.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 22, 2010 5:53:00 PM

Daniel --

"As for your second point, stop inventing straw men. Neither tbucket nor myself is making the argument that the defendant in this case should be pulled down to the judges level. We are instead mere saying the judge should be pulled up to the defendants level because, you know, they are 'engaged in the exact same criminal behavior'."

Would you be happier if the judge imposed sentence WITHOUT looking at the evidence?

I don't know if tbucket understands the utter frivolousness of your position, but I suspect you do. If it is not frivolous, then name me a single case in this country, ever, in which a judge or prosecutor (or defense lawyer, for that matter, since he obviously looks at the evidence too) has been prosecuted, much less convicted, for looking at the pictures in an obscenity case.

Just one. Name it. Or tell us that you and tbucket alone have this "insight" that has escaped everyone else.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 22, 2010 6:02:20 PM

"The images included the rape of a 2-year-old who cried for her mother during the attack."

Sorry, But my feeling is if they willingly watched this, they too should have their morals challenged. The mere dialog of something that horrific turns my stomach.

Posted by: Mike | Apr 22, 2010 6:37:24 PM

Mike --

Tell me how you, as an attorney (prosecution or defense), do an obscenity case without looking at the pictures.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 22, 2010 6:59:10 PM

Bill, I guess it goes back to Marks point.

In the article:"Prosecutors took the rare approach of showing some of the images to Tharpe before sentencing".

Does the prosecution in a drug case offer the judge a hit off a joint or crack pipe just to prove it's harmful or addictive?


Posted by: Mike | Apr 22, 2010 7:37:09 PM

Bill,
I'm sorry for not answering your question. I realize that without reviewing evidence it would be impossible for prosecution or defense to present a case.
Considering the mountain of evidence and a guilty plea, I believe any unwarranted viewing was unnecessary. I also believe the evidence was used to vent their frustrations on Cocking in place of the faceless cowards at large who are making the photos.

Posted by: Mike | Apr 22, 2010 8:34:04 PM

"Tell me how you, as an attorney (prosecution or defense), do an obscenity case without looking at the pictures."

That's exactly the point isn't it. I don't think equality under the law is a frivolous position and I'm sorry to hear that you do Bill. Why should one select group of individuals, in this case prosecutors, get to look at things legally that no one else gets to look at. What makes them so special, anyway. Did they go to a special education class so they could be special and above the law. I also thought the heart of a criminal prosecutor was to UPHOLD the law, not claim a special exemption from it.

If Congress makes a law that is impossible to enforce without the enforcers violating it then Congress is ridiculous and should be laughed out of court. That's what would happen in a sane society.

Posted by: Daniel | Apr 22, 2010 9:21:05 PM

Mike --

Thank you for the direct answer.


Daniel --

It is a society that hesitates to penalize this sort of sick behavior that would be insane. We are a tolerant country, but some things are beyond the pale and getting your kicks from watching a two year-old crying out in anguish as she is raped is one of them.

There is an overwhelming consensus that obscenity is properly made criminal, and this is as obscene as it gets. That being the case, the law necessarily makes it possible for the prosecutor, defense counsel, the jury and the judge (not to mention bailiff, stenographer, court clerk, marshals, etc.) to view the evidence.

I will ask again the question you whistled past: Please name a single case, ever, in which a judge, prosecutor or defense lawyer has been prosecuted, much less convicted, for looking at the pictures in an obscenity case they were litigating. Just one case.

As to the specifics of your post:

"I don't think equality under the law is a frivolous position and I'm sorry to hear that you do Bill."

Your really think some pervert looking at this stuff is "equal" to court personnel looking at it in the course of litigation? Is that what you think?

"Why should one select group of individuals, in this case prosecutors, get to look at things legally that no one else gets to look at."

Because Congress has written obscenity laws; such laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court; Article II invests the executive branch with the power to prosecute violations of the those and other laws; and prosecutors exercise that power, not as individuals but as instruments of the sovereign.

"What makes them so special, anyway."

See above. Police also have the power to take others into custody, using force if necessary. Try doing that as a private citizen and watch what happens. Or do you think that police making an arrest are guilty of assault and battery, and that failing to charge them with those offenses offends equal protection of the law?

"Did they go to a special education class so they could be special and above the law. I also thought the heart of a criminal prosecutor was to UPHOLD the law, not claim a special exemption from it."

Prosecuting a violation of a statute adopted by Congress and undertaking the steps necessary and proper to do so (e.g., to start with, looking at the evidence) is not the seeking of a special exemption but the carrying out of a Constitutional task assigned to the sovereign.

It's astonishing that I should have to explain any of this, and depressing that more defense-oriented types don't join me.


Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 22, 2010 10:50:25 PM

sorry bill but your WRONG this goes right back to what i'v said before. the govt our EMPLOYEES get their power and authority form US! if i cant' do it THEY CAN'T DO IT! sorry end of story.

no more than you who has no authority over MY vehicle can give daniel the right to drive it. You DONT' have that authority.

you can wrap it up in all the legal terms you want but in plain ENGLISH if we can't do it just hwo the hell to do we give OUR employess that power.

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 22, 2010 11:50:50 PM

"Your really think some pervert looking at this stuff is "equal" to court personnel looking at it in the course of litigation? Is that what you think?"

Yes, I do. The law focuses on behavior, not on the mens rea. How as an objective matter can it be anything else but equal. The only possible explanation for why it would not be the same is the very mens rea the law excludes.

Your whole commentary boils down to, "we have no other choice." Well that doesn't change the logical absurdity of the position. If the court wants to support or approve a logically absurd position it certainly has the *power*. I don't dispute that in the slightest. But I think it diminishes the trust the public has in the courts and is part of the reason that 80% of the people don't trust Washington.

You said the other day that you thought the law was too focused on procedures and not enough on substantive justice. But the other route is also dangerous. A single minded focus on substantive justice had a name in the eyes of the founders: they called it "tyranny".


Posted by: Daniel | Apr 23, 2010 12:15:04 AM

Bill, you obviously harbor a great deal more reverence for the work product of Congress (particularly on issues prone to the influence of demagoguery) than I do.

Nonetheless, Congress somewhat routinely passes dumb statutes, and presidents routinely sign them into law, almost exclusively to fend off opportunistic challengers and hysterical reactions from mobs they themselves incited with campaigns of fear and loathing.

In a better society, one would have to buy, distribute or produce contraband images to be put in jeopardy of prison terms marked in years or decades.

The law we're talking about targets not just the icky pervs we all love to hate but citizens who are merely curious about a highly publicized, harshly criminalized phenomena.

Posted by: John K | Apr 23, 2010 1:20:25 AM

Daniel --

"Your whole commentary boils down to, 'we have no other choice.'"

It's true that we have no other choice if we are to maintain obscenity prosecutions, but that is not what my commentary boils down to. Indeed, while the "we have no other choice" assertion is true (and you don't deny its truth), it's not even the main point. The main point is the difference between sovereign power and individual power.

The sovereign can do lots of things individuals can't do. This has been true since governments came into existence. The illustration I gave you, and that you didn't answer, was this: Police have the power to take persons into custody, using force if necessary. Try doing that as a private citizen and watch what happens. Or do you think that police making an arrest are guilty of assault and battery, and that failing to charge them with those offenses offends the Equal Protection Clause? Or even equal protection principles?

It's quite true that 80% of the people don't trust Obama-dominated Washington -- a figure higher than at any point in the presidency of George W. Bush (or Richard Nixon for that matter). And that distrust is well-founded, because, in this discrete and unusual moment, we have a government that doesn't listen to the people. But I quite assure you that there would be even more distrust if the government simply let some pervert get away this this horrible stuff on the preposterous theory that those who prosecuted the crime ipso facto committed an identical crime.

I asked you to produce a single case, in 200 years, in support of your theory that the prosecutors of obscenity are guilty of an obscenity crime, and you produced none. Contrary to what you maintain, that is not because we have a court system that neither gets nor earns the public's trust. To the contrary, the Gallup poll says: "Since the early 1970s, Gallup has periodically asked Americans to assess their overall trust and confidence in the judicial branch of government headed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the current poll, 69% of Americans say they have a "great deal" (15%) or "fair amount" (54%) of confidence..." See http://www.gallup.com/poll/28861/onethird-americans-say-us-supreme-court-too-conservative.aspx.

The idea that the public would be happier if we gave a pass to these vile and sadistic pictures on the theory that prosecutors should be effectively disabled from bringing them to book is just wild. Do you really think that would build public trust in government?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 23, 2010 11:19:06 AM

John K --

Contrary to your statement, I harbor no "reverence" for the work of Congress. In fact, along with a majority of the public, I disapprove of its main recent work, that being the mind-numbing expansion of the welfare state that the public didn't want and knows we can't afford. No wonder, as Daniel points out, public confidence in Washington is near an all-time low.

That said, while I have no reverence for, I have no choice but to respect, and obey, this (and other) laws, whether or not I agree with them. The social contract binds me whether we have a wise Congress or, as now, a foolish one.

It binds you too.

And it binds the pervert who collected these appallingly cruel and evil pictures.

"In a better society, one would have to buy, distribute or produce contraband images to be put in jeopardy of prison terms marked in years or decades."

Translation: "In a society where I run the show as I think best, rather than allowing the unwashed masses to do so, one would have to buy..."

"The law we're talking about targets not just the icky pervs we all love to hate but citizens who are merely curious about a highly publicized, harshly criminalized phenomena."

John, I have been reading your stuff for too long to think that you fall for the line that these guys are "merely curious about...criminal phenomena"). (Although I give you credit, I guess, for inventing the stainless phrase "criminal phenomena" to substitute for what these things actually were, to wit, pictures of a toddler crying out in anguish as her tormentors raped her).

You are way too smart to think that people collect this filth out of scientific curiosity. Give it a rest.


Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 23, 2010 11:49:30 AM

poor poor bill. your again bringing up that delusion!

"The sovereign can do lots of things individuals can't do."

SORRY bill but we DON'T have a soverign. What we have is a group of EMPLOYEES we hired to enforce a set of rules WE CREATED.

The last soverign who tried to claim this area was run out of the county at the point of a GUN!

plus i suggest you go back and look at just how the term "sovereign" came into being! They were considered GODS! of course GOD doesn't make mistakes. Well a few 1,000's years later people started to wise up so they then CLAMIED to be just descendents of gods! so were partyly human so could make mistakes but still had that connection to GOD!.

in the 1700's we ran our GOD claiment out of the country and setup our own rules and hired a set of employees to enforce them.

my EMPLOYEES will NEVER have MORE POWER than i do! sorry it just doens't work that way.

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 23, 2010 12:07:35 PM

rodsmith --

"Sovereign" as used in modern parlance refers to the executive. In that sense, we do indeed have a sovereign (as in, for example, "sovereign immunity"). Essentially the same concept is carried over in the still viable doctrine of emminent domain, cf. Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005). (I do not agree with the outcome in Kelo, which I regard as an unjustified expansion of the doctrine, but the doctrine itself remains intact).

The modern day sovereign is not a king, obviously, notwithstanding that the present occupant of the office often acts as if he were. He is elected, and those, like federal prosecutors, exercising the power he delegates to them may legally undertake all manner of things an individual citizen may not.

"The last sover[e]ign who tried to claim this area was run out of the county at the point of a GUN!"

Actually, he never left England, and Cornwallis's surrender was a gentlemanly affair.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 23, 2010 12:27:41 PM

Bill,

I don't respond you your claim about arresting people because it's a stupid analogy and you know it.IThe difference is mens rea. Arresting someone isn't battery because there is no intention to commit battery. If a drop a block on my neighbors foot while helping him build his house it's not battery and no on would claim it was. If a drop a block on his foot while in the middle of an argument over a fence, it likely is.

The problem with child porn law is that it eliminates all context and all mens rea. Possession is per se illegal. I think that is radical and tyrannical. The easy solution would be for either Congress or the courts to have put in a mens rea requirement. That would solve the problem. But it wouldn't be tyranny and life without tyranny would be no fun for anyone, right?

Posted by: Daniel | Apr 23, 2010 2:20:09 PM

Daniel --

You complained bitterly that the prosecutor in this case was not charged with and convicted for obscenity (although oddly, you had nothing to say about the culpability of defense counsel, who certainly must have possessed and looked through the same pictures). In particular, you said that the prosecutor gets a "special exemption," in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Equal Protection Clause. For example, you said, "I don't think equality under the law is a frivolous position and I'm sorry to hear that you do Bill."

Persons in equal positions should indeed be equal in the eyes of the law. But persons in UNequal positions should not be. A prosecutor litigating an obscenity case (or a policeman investigating one) are acting as agents as the sovereign, and are cloaked with sovereign power. They can do things that would be patently illegal if a private citizen did them. But as I said -- and you don't rebut -- this has been true since governments came into existence. I do not know of a single government on the planet of which it is NOT true. Do you?

President Obama has approved (indeed, he may have directly ordered) drone strikes on targets in Afghanistan and Iraq that have killed numerous people, mostly al Qaeda operatives but, occasionally and inadvertently, civilians as well. Of course Congress has not declared war on either country.

So is Obama guilty of murder?

There are a few left wing wackos who think so. But that's it. Obama is the sovereign, and may act in a sovereign capacity to kill alien jihadist warriors who threaten mass murder in the United States.

Don't like it? Vote him out of office (I hope to, albeit for different reasons). But the idea that he is a "murderer" because, as the executive, he does things it would be grossly illegal for a private citizen to do is nuts.

For largely identical reasons, the idea that a prosecutor who (necessarily) looks through the most basic evidence in an obscenity case is ipso facto a criminal is also nuts. As I've said, there is a reason you can't come up with a single case in 200 years that has held any such thing.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 23, 2010 4:34:18 PM

Under the federal prosecutors' magical thinking, each time child pornography is viewed, the children are injured, the crime is committed again and they are re-victimized. Under this view, child pornography is unique among criminal offenses, in that a criminal prosecution exposes the victims to the real harm of the very crime. If you adopt this approach questioning the viewing by officers of the court looks less nonsensical.

Of course, the other solution is to rethink the re-victimization argument, then neither side has an absurd argument to maintain.

Posted by: Tim Capps | Apr 23, 2010 5:19:03 PM

Tim Capps --

"Under the federal prosecutors' magical thinking, each time child pornography is viewed, the children are injured, the crime is committed again and they are re-victimized."

And under defense counsel's idiotic thinking, the defendant deserves leniency because he "didn't flee."

Still, at least you mentioned the fact that there IS a victim, which puts you, in relative terms, ahead of the game.

P.S. Since the defendant got a well deserved 55 years for this sickening stuff, restitution is something of a moot issue.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 23, 2010 5:54:03 PM

I'm sorry, I frequently disagree with Bill. He and I are on different sides of the aisle politically but I have speak up on this one. Arguing that somehow the judge and prosecutors are guilty of possession of child porn is ludicrous. I go back to Bill's analogy to possssion of narcotics. That is a completely apt comparison. For example, here in California, possession alone of a narcotic is a crime. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec 11350 or 11377 depending on the type of drug.) Case law establishes that possession means "exercising dominion or control over it, with knowledge of its nature as a narcotic." When I worked at the DA's office, I held a lot of drugs during hearings and trials. I manipulated them, held them, passed them around, etc. That would qualify as having "control over" them. Are you really arguing that I'm guilty of thousands of incidences of possession of a narcotic?

And yes, officers, prosecutors and judges are different. Officers are sworn peace officers which, by statute, grants them certain rights and responsibilities not applicable to non-LEO's. Judges and prosecutors also take oathes prescribed by statute which grant them certain rights and responsibilities.

And while no child pornography is acceptable, there are varying degrees. A picture of a 17 y/o taken by their boyfriend/ girlfriend does not have the same level of victimization as what was at issue here. So the level of depravity should be considered in the sentence.

Posted by: da2b | Apr 23, 2010 8:15:24 PM

horse pucky bill you still seem to miss the point. THEY ARE EMPLOYEES! they work for us! They are not a govt like those in europe or asia that are descended from kings and queens. THEY ARE EMPLOYEES!

no employee can have more power then their EMPLOYER!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 23, 2010 9:28:03 PM

da2b --

Thank you. I must be doing something wrong. The point is so obvious that I can't believe it's not getting through, but it's not. I appreciate your chiming in.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 23, 2010 10:51:10 PM

rodsmith --

As I have said before, you alone are worth the price of admission.

Sincerely,
Your humlbe former employee

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 23, 2010 10:53:08 PM

thanks bill.

but i will give you this one!

"You complained bitterly that the prosecutor in this case was not charged with and convicted for obscenity (although oddly, you had nothing to say about the culpability of defense counsel, who certainly must have possessed and looked through the same pictures)."

Since under the LAW as it sits now all it takes is simiple posession to be guilty even if you NEVER look at them your GUILTY. Your right the defense attorney is JUST as gulity as anyone else who has them. heck let's lock em all up, the defendant, the da the defense attory and the JUDGE ana even the jury if the DA was retard enough to show them to them

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 24, 2010 1:53:16 PM

My question is:
Does a detective book the defendants computer with these obscene images into a vault until they are needed and the original computer is used for proof of evidence? Or are numerous copies of these images burned onto portable media such as CDs, DVDs, and memory sticks for attorney review?
It does bring into question of when can they view it and how often?
Are they (Prosecutors/defense attorneys) allowed to take this material home or make more copies of it?
Maybe this should be addressed. I'm not making accusations. I'm just pointing at the window that could be left open.

Posted by: Mike | Apr 24, 2010 6:25:07 PM

Mike --

I don't know the answer to your questions. I imagine it varies from one jurisdiction to the next.

I can tell you this in an analogous context. If, in a cocaine case, the lawyer (prosecution or defense) "samples" some of the evidence at home, that is a crime and I would prosecute it as such. The drug's identity and purity, etc., can be verified in lab tests. That is not the lawyer's job, and if "sampling" it is what he's doing, he is not doing it as an instrument of the sovereign but as an individual.

Sovereign power is reserved for sovereign functions. Once you depart from those functions, criminal liability get attached to you just like anyone else.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 24, 2010 8:31:49 PM

Bill, Thank you for a response.
I should hope sensitive material of this nature would be held in the tightest grip. I don't believe it would take very long for someone to determine what they're looking at is porn. Kind of like a murder weapon. Keep it on site at the evidence room. Once the determination is made, lock it back up. I can't imagine any need to carry that around. Too many liabilities.
I wonder why Cocking accepted a plea to two counts of attempted lewd and lascivious battery. They only mentioned one attempt with the 12 year old.

Posted by: Mike | Apr 24, 2010 9:31:23 PM

think again mike when the georgia supreme court was looking at their bit of nazi stupidity recently the District attorney for the case was passing out copyies of the video tape that showed what he decieded was abuse to state legslators as well as media members.

there was talk about a federal cp prosecution but of couse since he was a govt offical it got canned and forgotten.

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 26, 2010 2:49:25 AM

I'd be more inclined to worry about the sick puppy that raped the little girl, than the guy who watched the video. I have not seen anything that suggest that looking at child porn makes a person want to molest kids. If that were true, that would then would suggest that looking at porn in general would make everyone here a sexual deviant, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Huh? | May 3, 2010 11:06:03 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB