« Two notable white-collar rulings from the Second Circuit | Main | "Woman who sprayed breast milk at deputies sentenced" »

August 1, 2011

Continued controversy over defendant gettting jailhouse access to kiddie porn he created

Regular readers may recall this post last month discussing an interesting local criminal procedure story out of Washington, headlined "Accused sex offender allowed to watch child porn in jail."  The story has developed further and has now hit the New York Times via this piece headlined "Furor Over Giving Rape Suspect Explicit Tapes."  Here are excerpts:

[Weldon Marc] Gilbert created more than 100 videos of the boys, sometimes turning the camera on himself. In 2009, he pled guilty in federal court to 31 counts of producing child pornography involving 17 victims and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

While Mr. Gilbert sits in jail here, he is preparing for another trial next month, this time on state charges of rape and molestation. In this case, he is acting as his own lawyer. And as such, he is allowed to review the evidence against him — including the pornographic videos — and watch them as often as he likes. Restricting his access could result in a mistrial.

Local law enforcement officials are furious, but there is not much they can do about it. “It’s absurd and maddening,” said Mark Lindquist, the prosecutor for Pierce County, which includes Tacoma, where the state trial is to begin Sept. 19. While defendants normally can view evidence against them, Mr. Lindquist said, they are not usually allowed to possess it, particularly when it is contraband like pornography.

“Defense attorneys typically ask to see some portion of the pornography that will be used as evidence, review a nominal amount of it and leave,” Mr. Lindquist said. “I have never had a case where a defense attorney wanted to possess the pornography. We don’t turn cocaine over to defendants for them to personally check out.”

After a local television station, KOMO, reported the situation last month, there was a public protest at the jail here where Mr. Gilbert is being held. Many state legislators have vowed to change the law but they cannot do so in time to affect Mr. Gilbert’s case. Mr. Lindquist said his office would draft language that would “pass constitutional muster,” though he expects challenges from defense lawyers concerned about the rights of defendants.

Unlike most inmates, who follow their lawyers’ advice not to discuss their cases with the news media, Mr. Gilbert, 50, who flew for U.P.S., is speaking out from behind bars. He sent a four-page handwritten letter to Mr. Lindquist early last month, denouncing him and others for stirring up the outcry against him. He blamed officials for giving the public the impression that he was reviewing the tapes for his own prurient interests and noted that this was “ludicrous” since he had to look at them in a separate room monitored by corrections officers and with his private investigator present.

He told Mr. Lindquist to drop the charges because he was not guilty. He also suggested that Mr. Lindquist was pursuing the case for his own political advantage. “Who, beside yourself, benefits from the second round of prosecution?” Mr. Gilbert asked. In response, Mr. Lindquist said he did not give “a free pass” to criminals just because they were already serving time....

Federal prosecutors have described Mr. Gilbert, who lived in an expensive house in Lake Tapps, just east of Tacoma, as a “master manipulator” who would groom his victims to gain their trust before abusing them. “Gilbert saw each of the dozens of boys that he sexually abused as sex objects he could obtain by giving them things,” federal prosecutors wrote a few years ago. He gave them money, cellphones, flying lessons, trips overseas, strippers and alcohol, they said — even help with their homework. “His sexual sadism and his fascination with boys was the center of his life,” they wrote.

John Henry Browne, a lawyer from Seattle who represented Mr. Gilbert on the federal charges and helped arrange the deal under which Mr. Gilbert pleaded guilty, is acting as standby counsel in the state case. He said in an interview that Mr. Gilbert was exercising his constitutional rights and that they should be protected.

Mr. Browne also said that he — and Mr. Gilbert — had watched the videos a few years ago in preparing for the federal case. He said 90 percent of them were “silly” and described them as “birthday spankings.” The remaining 10 percent, he said, were “problematic.”

Recent related post:

August 1, 2011 at 03:09 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2014e8a4c9614970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Continued controversy over defendant gettting jailhouse access to kiddie porn he created:

Comments

sounds and looks like to me the state and fed's brought this mess on themselves. IF they would PICK A JURISDICTION and charge accordingly this wouldnt' have happened!

"In 2009, he pled guilty in federal court to 31 counts of producing child pornography involving 17 victims and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

While Mr. Gilbert sits in jail here, he is preparing for another trial next month, this time on state charges of rape and molestation."

so what looks like what happned is the dirtbag got cought by the feds and plead GUILITY! NO FUSS no muss! then not to be outdon the little retards at the state lvl decided to have their own trial! at that point he decided to STICK IT TO THEM!

looks like he's done a damn good job too!

Posted by: rodsmith | Aug 1, 2011 7:02:23 PM

It is true the State seems to have precipitated this mess to some degree. This is a 50-year-old man staring at 25 years in federal prison for the same conduct the State now wants to prosecute him for. Not only does this seem to violate DJ principles, but I have to say that the defendant's question about who benefits, other than the prosecutor (politically) is a good one.

Or is it possible that the real benefit of provoking this controversy is that it generates sufficient outrage to justify the rolling back of rights for thousands of regular defendants? Bad/outlying facts make bad law in legislatures as well as courts.

Posted by: Anon | Aug 2, 2011 12:03:52 PM

Also, the material about supervision is new. The original piece made it sound like he was in a room alone with the material and that the jailors had no idea what he was doing with it. The fact that he is not alone puts a very different light on the entire matter.

Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Aug 2, 2011 1:44:32 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