Legally speaking, the defendant is not required to create doubt, but the instruction on reasonable doubt may have contributed to the problem. The details of Lowe's trial are not clear from the appeal, but it appears that Lowe (or his attorney, if there was one) failed to create doubt regarding the government's case. If you apply the findings in this case to your hypothetical, you could not possibly get a conviction that would not be overturned by a reasonable appeals court. Since the files were buried in a Shareaza file-sharing library, and no evidence was introduced to prove that the defendant had opened the file-sharing program.
Knew the HP Pavilion laptop contained child-pornography filesĪnd permitted them to remain on the computer. The evidence did not permit a juror to conclude that James The evidence presented here fell well short of what we haveįound sufficient to convict in other cases involving multiple they provided no evidence regarding what the defendand and wife did for a living, which was relevant to the evidence regarding "opening an invoice". There is a long list of things that the prosecution failed to prove (e.g. In particular, no evidence was presented to prove that defendant's wife had not accessed the computer at the relevant time. The court noted that there were two other individuals in the house who also had access to the computer. Knowingly downloaded, possessed, and distributed the child Without improperly stacking inferences, no juror could inferįrom such limited evidence of ownership and use that James No rational juror could find him guilty beyond a reasonableĭoubt based on the evidence presented at trial.Ī juror could conclude that there was porn on the computer and that the defendant occasionally used the computer. Invitation for the jury to speculate as to what the evidence may be or Is and where what might be a reasonable inference that canīe drawn from the record evidence becomes nothing more than an I have to say, in this case, it has been particularlyĭifficult, even though it’s my job to do so, to discern Lowe moved for acquittal and did not enter any evidence. After a raid, illegal images were found on one computer, and forensic evidence provided a bit of evidence regarding when some of the files were downloaded, which was also connected with a person opening an invoice file containing the defendant's address 40 minutes before one of the porn files finished downloading. Police had IP logs that indicated that someone at Lowe's address was hosting a porn-sharing network and they downloaded some porn from the network. Lowe was convicted, because his computer actually did contain hundreds of child porn images. Lowe where the evidence seems even more damning.
0 kommentar(er)
