700 instances of child porn on the computer, and the guy gets off.

[The Backlash Cometh]

This case just seems to be in huge contrast with the child porn cases that we have been seeing on DU where someone has been prosecuted for one photograph that turned up on their computer, and incidentally, the person was the one who brought the photograph to the authority's attention. I think everyone can agree that was an excessive use of force.

However, I know that articles have turned up showing that law enforcement is cracking down on this crime and have gone to great extremes when it comes to cyber surveillance and prosecution. So this case confuses me, because all the evidence is there and the guy got off. I'm wondering if this is another case of favoritism which I see often around here:

UCF prof.’s child-porn case dropped

R******t, an Oviedo resident, was a political-science professor at the University of Central Florida when he was accused of having more than 100 child-pornography images on his work computer.

"The state felt that it could not prove the images belonged just to him," said Danielle Tavernier of the State Attorney's Office.

In May 2007, UCF technicians were repairing R*******t's computer when they found child-porn pictures and videos.

UCF police arrested R*******t immediately and the former professor was held on $138,000 bail.



http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2011/03/23/4d8910f04d212

[RevStPatrick]

1. Interesting thread title...

Might want to rethink that!

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. I tell you, I am so famous for that.. You just don't know.

I'm debating whether I should keep the title and take full credit for it.

[FSogol]

2. Maybe "gets off" isn't the right choice of words.

:shrug:

[MadHound]

3. The question becomes who does he know,

My guess, somebody in a high up post, and that he possibly has incriminating information that he could spill if he took the stand.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. I think it might have something to do with UCF.

The school is very politically involved with the community. Since the guy was a poli-sci teacher, he might have known where the bodies were buried.

[Nye Bevan]

6. Other people had access to the computer

According to the confidential source and court documents, Reichert's defense attorney was making the case that his client wasn't the only person who had access to the computer.

Even though the files were on his computer, he might have not been the one who downloaded them. I'm guessing that he was able to point to the date/time stamps on some of the files and prove that he was elsewhere when they were downloaded.

In most of the convictions I have read about there were not only images on the person's computer, but photographs etc. at the person's home, and also credit card charges for downloading the material. If the only evidence was computer files, and there was absolutely nothing at the guy's home, and no charges on his credit card, he could well have been innocent.

[Statistical]

7. The issue is work computer. Some (not all but some) employers are very sloppy.

I have seen computers reissued without a format and clean install. Hell at a previous job I had a computer issued to be that had a previous users "My documents" folder. So theoretically someone could download kiddie porn, persons leaves the company. Later computer is reissued to this guy with photos on it. He is unaware and the crime is discovered later.

For the record I think he probably is guilty but the standard isn't probably guilty but guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If the defense introduced evidence showing the university has a poor policy of digital security doubt in the jurors mind could be found to be reasonable. For example if they pulled other computers and found files (maybe not child porn but files) on computers that didn't belong to the person currently using it that would be pretty damning evidence.

The second issue is one of access. My computer at work requires both a password and smartcard. The drives are also encrypted so if some evidence is found on it well that would be hard to explain away. Not all employers are like that. You got everything from military grade security down to companies using non-business OS ("XP home") without any secure login at all.

In court it isn't what happened but what you can PROVE (beyond all reasonable doubt) happened.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Well, he lost his job so it's not like he didn't pay a high cost;

Still, it's a name I'll keep in mind to see where he turns up, and if he had political connections. I know from personal experience that you can get away with fraud around here if you know the right people.

[ThomCat]

9. Very true and important points.

It depends at that point on how diligent their IT department has been at always cleaning computers before they re-issue them, and can they prove that. And, do they have policies in place that make him responsible for all use and possession of that computer once it is loaned to him?

If they aren't always diligent in cleaning, or proving that they cleaned computers, and if they don't make a point in writing of holding people solely responsible at all times for anything that happens with those computers, then he definitely has a good defense.

That sucks, because Somebody should be held responsible, and we all hope that there would be enough information logged somehow to point to someone pretty definitively.

[Poll_Blind]

10. A key to understanding this is the knowledge that most DA's are like cheetahs

They will only go after prey they are sure they can catch.

If a cheetah expends all that energy and doesn't make the catch, they're out of a hell of a lot of calories. If a DA doesn't make the conviction, they tarnish their record- and every DA wants a million convictions and no losses.

In this case, the DA could have been swayed by some external force- i.e. the professor had friends in high places, but that's not necessary for all this to have gone down the way it has.

Instead, there's a much simpler explanation.

First, understand that in pretty-much every case I've ever read about, involving any contraband data typically stored in bulk (i.e. child pornography, MP3 music rips, pirated movies, etc.) how it usually goes down is:

1. The DA over-charges the person. So, they slap a charge of X counts of possessing child pornography. Then (and I'm also kind of mixing in my experience with pirated songs, etc.) they slap them with attempt to distribute- which could be based on very flimsy evidence multiplied by the number of counts of possession. And so on and so on. This is a really important tool for the DA: The ability to shotgun the defendant with as many serious charges as possible. So that the DA can then...

2. DA offers plea deal to the defendant, usually for just one single count of possessing child pornography, or copyrighted music, or whatever. So if you opt to go to trial the DA has so many charges against the defendant, it makes them fearful that (even if they're innocent) if just one of those charges sticks and they get convicted, they're fucked. However, the DA's plea bargain even has a reduced sentence and so it's very attractive to a nervous (even if innocent) defendant.

Now by this point most people will take the deal the DA offers. Again, the level of fear about a conviction affects guilty as much as innocent. And most people can't afford a good lawyer. If they choose to go to trial, all of a sudden both the defendant and the DA are on the line: Somebody's going to lose, and it's going to cost the loser quite a bit.

Ok, now there are two things which are very important in this article and neither of them are focused on hugely, but one of them might slip by most readers.

First, that the professor had lawyer-ed up immediately and was aggressively going after every defense which might apply. I.e. there was no password on the computer, anyone could have accessed it, etc.

Second, and in my opinion this is really telling, is that the unidentified witness who leaked the information to the newspaper appears to have worked at the computer repair place where the pornography was discovered and they were subpoenaed by the professor's defense. Now, to be fair, there is also the chance that was a policeman who was in charge of the forensic discovery on the computer. It kind of doesn't matter. What matters is that the professor's defense was going after them, almost certainly to prove an error in the "chain of custody" of the evidence.

This is key because, remember, when a person is convicted by a jury of their peers it is "beyond a reasonable doubt". So any lawyer is going to go after absolutely everything (regardless of whether the client is innocent or guilty) to attack the certainty that the DA will try to present that the defendant committed the crime. You might want to also just peruse Evidentiary Standards of Proof to get a better idea about all the different ways the professor's lawyer would probably undermine the DA's case, given a basic understanding of how the pornography was found, what the technicians were trying to do, etc.

This, and the fact that a "Police were only able to confirm that seven of the pornographic images included actual minors." means that the DA can't as easily shotgun the defendant with charges. In fact, on cross-examination the veracity and training of the policeman might come into question as far as their ability to identify a minor, visually. I really don't know, I'm more used to cases involving computer piracy of music or video.

Point is, the professor was making himself a very unattractive target for the DA. The DA looked at his chances at a jury trial and thought the better of it. Simply put, the DA didn't want to roll that pair of dice.

None of this has anything to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant, by the way.

PB

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Wow. You are good.

Great explanation. Thanks.

[slackmaster]

11. Unrec for needlessly redacting Michael Reichert's name

Michael Reichert!