Provision makes child-porn defense tougher, lawyers say

[varkam]

Dallas Morning News
Link

WASHINGTON – As the Justice Department steps up an aggressive crackdown on Internet child pornography, a little-noticed provision of a sex offender law is making it harder for defense attorneys to review some of the most important evidence against its suspected purveyors and consumers.

In response to a section of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, judges and prosecutors are requiring defense attorneys and computer forensic experts to examine digital pornography images on computers at government facilities, rather than receiving their own copies. Often, FBI agents stationed in the rooms monitor their activities.

The new provision has triggered an emotional debate about the constitutional rights of suspects who are accused of some of the most heinous crimes.

Supporters say the measure is needed to prevent children from being revictimized by unnecessary copying and distributing of the digital contraband. Many of the images gathered as part of the evidence depict very young children being raped and beaten.

As despicable as this sort of thing is, I'm not sure whether or not the way to go is to make the job of defense attorneys harder by placing evidentiary burdens on them in the process of defending their clients. AFAIK, this would mean that juries can no longer evaluate the central evidence in the case themselves - which to me seems unconstitutional.

edited to add: D'oh! I should of read the whole thing before posting. Juries can still be shown the images. Basically the only people left out of the loop is the defense...even still, I'm not sure whether or not that encroaches on the rights of defendants.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. How big is the problem of defense attorneys...

distributing kiddie porn?

Their offices may not be as secure as FBI offices, but lawyers are quite familiar with client confidentiality and do have ways of keeping things secret and safe.

Methinks this is yet another power grab by prosecutors so they have less work to do to prove their case.

[varkam]

2. That's what it seems like to me.

I don't think a blanket prohibition against granting evidence to defense attorneys is an effective way to solve the problem of unethical behavior by said attorneys.