Philadelphia Federal Child Pornography Charges: Distribution, Possession and Production

Philadelphia Federal Child Pornography Charges: Distribution, Possession and Production

Child pornography is an incredibly serious offense that can lead to lengthy prison sentences and severe consequences. When federal child pornography charges are brought in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it’s critical to understand the potential penalties and possible defenses. This article provides an overview of federal child pornography laws, typical charges, sentencing guidelines, and strategic defense considerations when facing prosecution in Philadelphia.

Typical Federal Child Pornography Charges in Philadelphia

There are three primary categories of federal child pornography prosecutions pursued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: distribution, possession, and production.

Distribution of Child Pornography

Distributing child pornography involves disseminating, selling, publishing, transferring or sharing sexually exploitative images or videos of minors with others. In the digital age, federal prosecutors aggressively go after online distribution through peer-to-peer file sharing networks, email, messaging apps, social media, and cloud storage sites.

Common charges for distributing child porn include:

• Distribution/Intent to Distribute Child Pornography – 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)
• Transportation of Child Pornography – 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1)
• Advertising Child Pornography – 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d)(1)(A)

Possession of Child Pornography

Possession is one of the most frequent child pornography crimes charged due to the nature of the offense. Possession applies to simply downloading or viewing sexually explicit images or videos of children. This encompasses intentional searching and streaming of illegal content, as well as unintentional access through spam email links or pop-up ads.

Typical possession charges include:

• Possession of Child Pornography – 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)
• Access with Intent to View Child Pornography – 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)

Production of Child Pornography

Producing child pornography involves coercing, inducing, or enticing minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct in order to create visual depictions. This includes persuading or manipulating children to take part in sexual acts or pose in pornographic ways to be photographed or filmed.

Common production charges include:

• Sexual Exploitation/Production of Child Pornography – 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)
• Coercion/Enticement of Minor to Engage in Sexual Activity – 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)
• Transportation of Minors for Illegal Sexual Activity – 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)

Penalties and Sentencing Guidelines

The penalties for federal child pornography convictions largely depend on the nature of the offense and the extent of the conduct. In Philadelphia, prosecutors generally seek lengthy prison terms even for first-time offenders.

Distribution or production crimes carry harsher punishments, including mandatory minimums of 5-15 years in prison. However, judges have latitude in determining appropriate sentences based on aggravating and mitigating factors.

Under federal sentencing guidelines, prison terms are calculated using the defendant’s criminal history category and final offense level. Enhancements for the number of images, prepubescent victims, distribution, and other factors can drastically increase offense levels and sentencing ranges.

For example, a first-time offender with 100 images would face 78-97 months under the guidelines. But with a 4-level enhancement for 600+ images and a 5-level boost for distribution, the range jumps to 168-210 months.

Strategic Defenses in Philadelphia Federal Court

When facing prosecution for child pornography, having an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer is paramount. Skilled counsel will carefully examine the evidence and build a strategic defense to challenge the government’s case.

Common defenses in Philadelphia child porn cases include:

Lack of Criminal Intent

In some cases, defendants accessed illegal images through spam, mislabeled files, or pop-up ads without criminal intent. Skilled counsel can argue this lack of intent.

Invalid Warrant

Attorneys scrutinize warrants to uncover procedural defects like stale information, lack of probable cause, or false statements that could result in evidence suppression.

Unlawful Search & Seizure

Lawyers examine if evidence was obtained through an illegal search or seizure violating the defendant’s 4th Amendment rights.

Computer Forensics Challenges

Seasoned counsel hire computer forensic experts to inspect electronic evidence and raise questions about accuracy, attribution, and possibility of tampering.