Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

In Philadelphia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, recently overturned a lifetime internet ban, which was imposed as part of a convicted child sex offender’s sentence. In reversing the defendant’s internet ban, the Third Circuit displayed its stance on the argument of internet as a right versus a privilege. The defendant, in the appeal, had been sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, followed by a lifetime of restricted internet access as a preventative measure against recidivism; he pled guilty to transferring photographs of children engaged in sexual acts via the internet, caught by an FBI agent who was undercover as one of his recipients.

The Third Circuit noted that the longest internet ban ever upheld by that Court was a ten year ban, following a twenty year prison sentence. The Eleventh Circuit recently upheld an unconditional lifetime ban on internet privileges, where the defendant was sentenced to six years imprisonment for traveling across state lines to have sexual relations with a minor. The judiciary system affords broad discretion when applying “special conditions” to probation and parole. This concept is rooted in the need for judges to weigh each defendant’s qualities, on a case by case basis, in order to determine how to best protect society and rehabilitate the defendant upon their release from custody. The variance in the Circuit Court opinions illustrates the broad discretion afforded to the Courts. Inevitably, the issue of internet privilege bans is one that must be brought before, and decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The argument for banning internet privileges is obvious; to prevent convicted child sex offenders from committing future harm upon release from prison. Those against internet bans raise the Civil Rights issues involved. As we advance further into the twenty-first century, the internet becomes more and more a vital part of our everyday lives. We use the internet to buy things, sell things, communicate, research, and even find employment. Banning one’s internet privileges not only prejudices a defendant in today’s society, but also severely impacts their future when the internet becomes even more necessary. Although the right to internet access is not provided by the Bill of Rights, proponents of the argument cite to the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech as one way an internet ban is unconstitutional. Some proponents of banning privileges, such as the Motion Pictures Association, have proposed a “three-strike” policy when dealing with copyright infringers. Such a policy, when applied to child sex offenders, would likely invite extreme criticism. Until the issue is decided by the Supreme Court, however, the imposition of internet bans will be decided on a case by case basis, impacted by the area of the country where the crime occurred.

Crimes against Minors

Knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity is a violation of both State and Federal laws. If you are being investigated or have been arrested and charged with sexual abuse of a minor, attempting to do so, or other crimes against minors such as possession of child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.

For a confidential consultation call (215) 563-9800 or email marc@nefflawoffices.com.

In a recent appeal, challenging a motion for summary judgment which had initially been granted, the Superior Court of New Jersey reversed the motion finding an employer can potentially be held liable where an employee uses a work computer for child pornography purposes. The employee in question had photographed and videotaped his ten-year old step-daughter nude, subsequently posting the material on a child pornography site via his workplace computer. The employer has a policy in place, which all employees must agree to as part of their employment agreement, stating e-mails are the property of the employer and not the employees, employees are subject to the monitoring of their work computers, and employees must report any unacceptable workplace activity witnessed on a co-workers computer. The employee in question had been reported numerous times to superiors for allegedly viewing pornographic material on his computer during work hours. Twice, supervisors inspected the employee’s computer, examining the list of recently visited websites and observing that some were pornographic in nature. Although the sites were never opened by supervisors, the name of at least one site indicated it was potentially child pornography. Although the employer’s policy allowed for the dismissal of an employee in breach of the agreement, the employee in question was merely reprimanded on both occasions.

A lawsuit was filed by the victim’s mother, alleging negligence of the employer due to its failure to adequately monitor the employee’s computer. To be found liable for negligence, the Plaintiff must prove a duty exists on the part of the employer to monitor the employee’s computer, that duty was breached, and that breach of duty caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. In the motion for summary judgment filed by the employer and initially granted, the Court held the final element of negligence could not be met because the sexual abuse of the victim would have occurred regardless of whether the employer had monitored the computer. On appeal, however, the Superior Court reversed the motion and remanded the case for trial. The Court found the employer had both the ability and the right to monitor the employee’s work computer. The employer had knowledge of the employee’s past access of pornographic websites, giving rise to a duty to prevent the possible harm to others. Although the employee potentially could have used another computer had he not been able to post the pornography via his workspace, the Court held the issue of cause as one for a jury to decide and remanded the case accordingly. The Court’s ruling illustrates an employer’s potential liability for an employee’s criminal acts, within the scope of business.

Child Pornography

Federal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.

If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.

A recent Third Circuit decision set a precedent that using an adult intermediary, to plan sexual encounters with a minor, constitutes attempted enticement of a minor and violates 18 U.S.C. §2422(b). The relevant portion of the statute reads that whoever uses means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexual activity that is illegal, or attempts to do so, shall be fined and imprisoned for no less than ten (10) years under statutory guidelines.

The decision in United States v. Brian Lee Nestor involved a man (“Nestor”) who placed an advertisement on Craigslist seeking “family fun”. A Pennsylvania State Police officer, trained in recognizing code for the sexual abuse of minors and child pornography, identified “family fun” as seeking a parent, guardian, or other adult with influence over a minor, to allow said minor to participate in sexual conduct or child pornography with the person placing the advertisement. The officer began a correspondence with Nestor, choosing to involve the FBI in the investigation as well, upon which a meeting was scheduled at Nestor’s home between himself and who he thought to be a stepfather and stepson. Also contained in the correspondence were instructions on how to elude police detection, and a request by Nestor that the stepfather bring child pornography to the meeting.

Nestor was arrested and charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) and violating a possession of child pornography statute. Nestor pled guilty to the child pornography charge, but challenged the other violation based on his dealings with an adult intermediary, rather than knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor. Nestor’s motion for acquittal was denied at trial, for which he appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Third Circuit held that Nestor had taken substantial steps to put him in direct contact with a minor, so that he could then attempt to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the minor into illegal sexual activity. Nestor did so by using an internet website, an established means of interstate commerce. The Court cited to U.S. v. Tykarsky where a defendant who challenged his conviction of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) because he had been dealing on-line with an undercover agent, and not an actual minor, was held to have been in violation of the statute nonetheless. The Court therefore held that “it is of no moment that Nestor never dealt directly with his intended child victim.” The fact that Nestor intended to violate the statute is enough to uphold his conviction, even though no actual minor was ever involved. The Court further stated that even if the statute were construed more strictly or narrowly, the substantial steps taken towards the violation would, at the least, constitute an attempt of the crime. The Court therefore upheld the sentence of the District Court.

Crimes against Minors

Knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity is a violation of both State and Federal laws. If you are being investigated or have been arrested and charged with sexual abuse of a minor, attempting to do so, or other crimes against minors such as possession of child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.

In a recent appellate decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the sentence of Paul R. Thielemann, imposing a term of imprisonment followed by a ten-year term of supervised release, subject to special conditions. Thielemann pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography and was subsequently sentenced to the statutory maximum, 240 months imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. The Court conditioned Thielemann’s supervised release on two special restrictions; for the term of supervised release, Thielemann is 1) restricted from owning or operating a personal computer with internet access in home or at any other location, including employment, without written approval of the probation officer, and 2) he is restricted from possessing or viewing any materials, including pictures, photographs, books, writings, drawings, or video games depicting and/or describing sexually explicit conduct.

Thielemann appealed his sentence on the basis of special conditions imposed on his supervised release. Specifically, District Courts may impose special conditions of supervised release, but such conditions must be reasonably related to the factors set forth in the statutory sentencing guidelines, and must involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to deter future crime, protect the public, and rehabilitate the defendant. The Third Circuit examined the relevant facts of the case under this standard and determined the special conditions were merited. Those relevant facts involved Thielemann’s usage of child pornography and sexual abuse of minors, to entice heterosexual males into sexual activity with him. This commingling of adult and child sexual conduct was sufficient to merit the special conditions imposed on Thielemann.

The Court began by examining the ban on sexually explicit material, as weighed against Thielemann’s First Amendment Constitutional rights. The Court cited to United States v. Voelker, where Defendant’s similar lifetime ban on possession of sexually explicit material was overturned due to a lack of nexus between the special condition and the crime committed. In Voelker, Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography, but nothing in the record suggested that sexually explicit material involving adults contributed in any way to the offense. Contrarily, the Court found overwhelming evidence in the record of the case at hand to conclude that Thielemann’s exposure to sexual material will contribute to future offenses by Thielemann. The Court held the restriction not to be overbroad or vague, and therefore not a violation of Thielemann’s First Amendment rights.

The Court then considered the ban on computers with internet access. The Court noted the importance of computer usage in today’s society, but also explained that Thielemann is not banned from owning a personal computer, but merely from accessing the internet. Further, the ban on internet access expires after ten years of supervised release; in Voelker, a lifetime ban on internet access was found not to be narrowly tailored and contained no exceptions. Unlike the ban in Voelker, Thielemann may obtain permission from his probation officer should the need arise to access the internet for specific purposes. Finding a nexus between the special conditions of supervised release imposed and the aspects of the offense committed, the Court found no Constitutional violations and upheld Thielemann’s sentence.

Child Pornography

Federal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.

If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.

Pennsylvania’s statute on Sexual Abuse of Children contains a provision which states: “it is illegal for an individual to knowingly possess or control any book, magazine, pamphlet, slide, photograph, film, videotape, computer depiction or other material depicting a child under the age of eighteen years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act.” In 2003, Anthony Diodoro was charged and subsequently convicted with violations of the Sexual Abuse of Children statute and Criminal Use of a Communication Facility. Police had obtained a search warrant for Diodoro’s computer, upon which they found evidence of accessing child pornography in the hard drive’s cache memory; the images were not saved to the hard drive but rather the evidence showed the images were merely accessed via the internet and viewed by the user.

Diodoro was convicted and sentenced to nine to twenty-three months incarceration, followed by five years of supervised probation. A panel of Superior Court judges reversed Diodoro’s conviction, finding that the evidence against him was insufficient to support a finding of possession of child pornography in conformance with the statute. The Commonwealth appealed and was granted an en banc rehearing by the Superior Court. In this rehearing, the Court held that Diodoro’s mere accessing and viewing of child pornography constituted the control element of the criminal statute, basing their opinion on the ordinary meaning of control as to exercise restraint or directing influence over something; specifically, his use of the computer mouse to open the images, locating the websites, and having the ability to print, save, or email the images once opened and viewed. The panel decision was therefore set aside and conviction reinstituted against Diodoro.

Diodoro appealed the en banc decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and was granted review of the following question: “Whether accessing and viewing child pornography over the internet constitutes ‘control’ of such pornography under [the statute].” Diodoro argued that in order to have control over the images, the Commonwealth must prove he had knowledge of their presence on his computer; further, he argued it is the legislature’s responsibility to enact a statute which provides fair notice that viewing child pornography constitutes an offense under the Sexual Abuse of Children statute. The Supreme Court heard the arguments and affirmed the ruling of the Superior Court. The Court agreed with the definition of control being used as to exercise restraint or direct influence. Further, the Court noted that had Diodoro saved or printed the images, he would have violated the possession element of the statute and been convicted as such. The Court reasoned that interpreting “possession or control” as not interchangeable would create a major loophole in the statute in which offenders could merely delete or not save child pornography upon intentional viewing. The purpose of the statute is to protect a compelling state interest (protecting children from sexual exploitation), and therefore must be interpreted broadly enough to punish those who intentionally access (but do not save) child pornography.

Child Pornography

Federal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.

If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making or distributing child pornography, or the sexual abuse of a child, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. For a confidential consultation, please contact our offices at 215-563-9800 or via email at marc@nefflawoffices.com.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided the case of United States v. Olhovsky, ruling that the sentence imposed by the District Court upon the Defendant was unreasonable. Nicolau Olhovsky was sentenced to six years imprisonment after pleading guilty to charges of possessing child pornography. In 2004, an undercover law enforcement officer was investigating an Internet Relay Chat channel (“IRC”) in which users would trade pornographic images of children. Olhovsky was identified as one of the IRC’s users. In December of 2004, and shortly after Olhovsky’s eighteenth birthday, officers obtained a search warrant for Olhovsky’s home which he shared with his mother and sister. The subsequent search resulted in discovery of a hard drive containing over six hundred images of child pornography. Olhovsky admitted to owning the hard drive and participating in the online trading of child pornographic images.

Nicolau Olhovsky was born with several birth defects, including problems with his heart and a concave chest. His parents divorced when he was seven; he and his sister lived with their mother who became permanently disabled in a car accident shortly after the divorce. Olhovsky was awkward and isolated as a child; bullied and teased at school because of his physical deficiencies. He had a history of depression, suicidal tendencies, and was admitted into a psychiatric facility for treatment. As a result of his many physical and social problems, Olhovsky spent much of his adolescence alone in his room with his computer.

Following his guilty plea to child pornography charges, the Court ordered a psychological evaluation prior to sentencing. In his meetings with the court-appointed psychologist, Olhovsky discussed his adolescence, his current mental state, and explained as to how he became involved with child pornography; he had received an email which he opened, and this email sparked his curiosity. Dr. Silverman, who was contracted with Pretrial Services, wrote a letter to the trial judge expressing his opinion on Olhovsky and emphasizing he had never written a similar letter for any other Defendant. In his letter, Silverman alluded to Olhovsky’s past and that Olhovsky had the maturity level of a fourteen or fifteen year old. He explained that Olhovsky was extremely remorseful for his crimes and that he was slowly progressing towards becoming a mature adult; he is currently in a relationship with an adult female, he has been more active socially, etc. Most importantly, Dr. Silverman opined that Olhovsky’s collection of child pornography was due to his immaturity and curiosity, and that he was a low risk for becoming a pedophile or repeat offender.

Upon examination of this letter, defense counsel attempted to subpoena Dr. Silverman to testify at the sentencing of Olhovsky. The prosecution objected to the subpoena being granted, and the trial court refused to grant the subpoena, holding that Dr. Silverman would be testifying as an expert and such testimony was cumulative in expert reports available to the Court. The Court stated that Dr. Silverman was free to testify voluntarily and could submit additional reports for review; the defense alleges that Pretrial Services threatened to revoke Dr. Silverman’s vendor contract had he volunteered to testify, causing him not only to choose not to, but also to cease communication with the defense. Upon sentencing, the Court examined the mitigating evidence which was available and chose to impose a six year sentence; less than the suggested guidelines but sufficiently lengthy to satisfy the Court’s determination that a “substantial, indeed, draconian” punishment was required.

On appeal, the Third Circuit held that not only did the trial court err in not granting the subpoena for Dr. Silverman to testify as an expert, but that his testimony would actually be factual. Dr. Silverman could have testified to mitigating circumstances which were not contained in his letter to the Court. Further, the Appellate Court held the District Court failed to fully consider the expert reports submitted by the defense as mitigating evidence, imposing sentence to punish the Defendant rather than rehabilitate him. Olhovsky’s sentence was subsequently vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing.

Child Pornography
Federal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.

If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.

As cellular telephone technology advances at an extremely rapid pace, more and more teenagers are possessing phones with the capabilities to snap still photos or record short videos. Coupled with the fact that as a society, children are becoming acquainted with sex at younger ages, this technology has led to the practice of sexting; sending nude photos or other sexually explicit photos and/or videos to a recipient via cell phone. The practice of sexting has led to numerous ethical and moral arguments, but the practice amongst teens has caught the attention of law enforcement. In many jurisdictions, these sexually explicit images and videos, sent amongst teenagers, are violations of child pornography laws.

An online survey conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy showed that one-in-five teenage participants have sent and/or received sexually explicit material via cell phone. Nearly two-thirds of those who admitted to sexting only did so within a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship; however teens in the other one-third admitted to sexting for the purpose of “hooking-up”. It is this culture of a casual sexual relationship which causes worry amongst advocacy groups who blame society’s attitude for the first rise in teenage pregnancy rates in the past fifteen years.

A Delaware middle-school recently dealt with an incident where cell phones were confiscated during class because they were forbidden in the classroom, only to find sexually explicit material upon inspection of the phone’s content. The school determined the images were not sent at or during school and decided to notify the students’ parents to deal with the problem. Other teens have not been as lucky. Another student in Delaware faces obscenity charges for sending nude photos of himself to classmates. In Pennsylvania, seven students were charged with sending or receiving child pornography when their phones were discovered to contain explicit images sent between the students. Convictions for these offenses not only will carry potential confinement, fines, and psychological evaluations, but may also require those convicted to be registered as sex offenders.

Many oppose prosecution in these cases for the simple reason that the participants do not have a criminal intent, but rather are merely conforming to society as they see it. There are no penalties for the same consensual actions amongst those of age. Many agree that the responsibility stems with the parents to talk to their children. Children should understand that once an image is sent, they no longer have any control over it; and with today’s technology, such material can easily end-up on the internet. Teens should understand that cellular phone technology does not come with a guarantee of privacy.

Child Pornography

Federal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.

If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.

The Child Online Protection Act (“COPA”) was passed in 1998 in an attempt to regulate inappropriate web-based content which was too easily accessible by children. COPA was never allowed to take effect, however, as an injunction on the Act was immediately issued after its passage. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged in ACLU v. MuKasey, in which a United States District Court held COPA to be unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. The ruling was appealed but upheld last summer by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

As expected, the Circuit Court’s ruling was appealed and the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to grant certiorari; the Supreme Court was asked to review the case and decide whether to affirm the lower court’s decision or reverse the decision, finding the Act constitutional. COPA was passed in 1998; two years after the Supreme Court had voided a similar law known as the Communications Decency Act. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court determined that the lower courts’ rulings on COPA were in line with both their previous decision and the framework for determining constitutionality. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari, effectively affirming the Circuit Court’s ruling, and voiding COPA.

The Supreme Court was under heavy pressure from the Bush administration to review the case, as the administration felt voiding the law would leave millions of children unprotected from pornography and other inappropriate material on the website. The Act would have required United States based websites to require credit card validation or some other means of age verification to allow access to the site. The American Civil Liberties Union, however, countered with the argument that COPA would not protect children from content via websites which do not operate in the United States. They argued that this infringed on American’s right to freedom of speech and that a better, more effective safety measure would be for parents to install filters on their home computers. The issue of COPA’s First Amendment implications was decided in 2004 by the Supreme Court in a split-decision, which blocked the law from taking effect on grounds that it did unconstitutionally affect freedom of speech; however, the case was sent back to the lower courts to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of internet filters. Based on the findings by the lower courts, most recently the Third Circuit, the Supreme Court recently held two closed-door meetings in which they elected not to review the Circuit Court’s holding.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case effectively voided COPA as it was found to be unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. The holding places the responsibility on the parents to protect their children from inappropriate web-based content, via internet filters or other parental means.

Cases involving child pornography and other internet crimes are very serious and often complicated. An experienced criminal defense attorney can assist you in defending against these prosecutions. Marc Neff has successfully handled many of these cases in both state and federal courts. Additionally, he conducts seminars for other attorneys on the most recent changes in the laws regarding child pornography and internet crime. For a confidential consultation, Mr. Neff can be contacted at (215) 563-9800 or via the internet at marc@nefflawoffices.com

New Jersey Assemblyman Neil Cohen resigned from his position on Monday, following allegations of suspected child pornography found on his computer. Colleagues of Cohen’s, who use the same legislative district office, alerted law enforcement officials last week of the alleged images found on Cohen’s computer. According to State Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, the investigation of Cohen began when a staffer in the Union office found a printed-out photo of a nude female, suspected to be in her early teens or younger.

The case has been referred to the State Attorney General’s office for investigation; Cohen has yet to be charged with a criminal offense. Cohen, a divorce lawyer, has served in the assembly for nearly 20-years. Cohen, who is regarded highly by his peers, will now have his legacy overshadowed by these allegations according to colleagues and other State officials. New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine released a statement expressing his shock and disturbance by the allegations. “Child pornography reflects a horrible debasement of children that is totally intolerable. Creating, distributing and using child pornography should be pursued vigorously by law enforcement wherever it is found." said Corzine. Cohen remains in psychiatric care, and pending further investigation, will likely face criminal charges.

Child Pornography

Federal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.

If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.