As discussed below, there is no direct evidence that Dillingham actually knew that the charged material contained child pornography at the time of its distribution or receipt and the Motion, at its core, requires the Court to determine whether the substantial evidence concerning the Defendant's general propensity to search for and view child pornography, without any demonstrable connection to the charged images, is sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant knowingly distributed and knowingly received child pornography.
Pending is a post-trial motion to set aside Defendant Dillingham's convictions for the distribution and receipt of child pornography.
0 kommentar(er)
