Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

State and federal laws have evolved to strictly prohibit and criminalize the possession of child pornography, aiming to protect vulnerable victims and ensure justice. However, with the rise of technology and artificial intelligence, new challenges have emerged, particularly in relation to AI-generated content that mimics child sexual abuse. Lawmakers and prosecutors have struggled to adapt existing laws to these new forms of imagery, which do not involve real children. As a result, there has been legal controversy over whether these AI-generated images should be treated the same as traditional child pornography under the law. In some cases, the constitutionality of these laws has been called into question, raising serious issues for those accused of possessing AI-generated child pornography.

In a recent federal appellate case out of Texas, a defendant challenged his conviction for possession of “an obscene depiction of a child engaged in sexual activity.” The catch? The material in question was not traditional child pornography involving real children, but AI-generated images that appeared to depict children in explicit sexual situations. This defendant’s case highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding AI-generated content and the ways in which prosecutors are trying to use existing child pornography laws to address this new issue.

The man was originally arrested for an unrelated charge, but during the investigation, authorities discovered a computer drive in his possession containing hundreds of AI-generated images. These images, though created digitally, depicted what appeared to be children engaged in explicit sexual acts. No real children were involved in the production of these images, yet the defendant was still charged under child pornography statutes. He was ultimately convicted of the crime, despite his arguments challenging the constitutionality of the law being used against him.

Continue reading →

Hearsay is a term that often comes up in legal discussions, especially in criminal cases. In simple terms, hearsay is any statement made outside of court that is presented in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. While this type of evidence can sometimes provide valuable insights, it is often considered unreliable. Hearsay does not allow the opposing side to cross-examine the person who originally made the statement. In Florida, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in criminal prosecutions, with certain exceptions. These exceptions become particularly contentious in cases of child sex abuse, where children’s statements may be the primary or only evidence available. However, children are vulnerable to manipulation and often have unreliable memories, making hearsay in these cases a double-edged sword. Recently, a Florida court of appeals addressed the use of child hearsay testimony in a criminal prosecution.

The case involved the arrest and prosecution of a man accused of sexually abusing his stepdaughter. The allegations were serious: two counts of sexual battery and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation, all involving a victim under the age of twelve. The case began when the stepdaughter reported to her mother that her stepfather had touched her inappropriately during visits to his house. This revelation came two years after the alleged abuse had ended. The mother discovered pornography on the child’s phone, and when she confronted her daughter, the child broke down and disclosed the abuse. The testimony that formed the crux of the prosecution’s case came from statements the child made during interviews with law enforcement officers and a child protection specialist.

Before the trial, the defendant objected to the use of these statements, arguing that they were hearsay and should be excluded. However, the trial court ruled that the testimony was admissible under Florida’s legal standards for hearsay exceptions. The court noted that the child’s statements were consistent across multiple interviews and were given in response to open-ended questions. The trial court found these factors provided enough safeguards to deem the testimony reliable.

Both United States Federal Courts and Florida state courts consider many factors when issuing a sentence after a criminal conviction. Generally, courts will apply factors that relate to the charged crime specifically, as well as factors relating to the defendant’s criminal history, character, and ongoing risk to the public. Sentencing guidelines use a sentencing matrix that considers all of the aggravating and mitigating factors and produces a suggested sentencing range, which judges should generally follow. A Florida man convicted of possessing child pornography recently appealed his sentence for improperly applying aggravating factors at his sentencing.

The defendant in the recently decided case was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and animal abuse after authorities found child pornography in an online storage folder attributed to the defendant. After obtaining a warrant and searching the defendant’s home, authorities found more child pornography, as well as animal sexual abuse videos. The defendant admitted the videos belonged to him, and was charged in federal court with multiple sexual crimes. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges. During sentencing, the court applied the guideline factors to the defendant’s specific situation, and he was sentenced to over 21 years in federal prison. The defendant appealed the sentencing to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing that an aggravating factor was improperly applied during his sentencing.

Specifically, the defendant challenged the court’s application of an enhancement based upon his “engaging in a pattern or activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.” Federal prosecutors had convinced the sentencing judge that the defendant had previously engaged in a sexual relationship with a boy who was under 16 and that he had had sex with the minor more than once. The defendant challenged the government’s evidence of the pattern of abuse, maintaining that the government could only prove that he had sex with the child one time. The appellate court rejected the defendant’s arguments, pointing to the victim’s testimony that he had sex with the defendant at least 2 times before he turned 16, and finding sufficient corroborating evidence between the defendant’s statements and those of the boy to determine that the sentencing judge properly applied the sentencing factors. As a result of the appellate decision, the defendant will be required to serve his sentence.

As technology progresses, Florida police officers, prosecutors, and courts face novel questions as to how the Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures apply to evidence sought from a cloud account or other online storage source. The Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case where the defendant had challenged the validity of a search warrant that was used to obtain evidence against him for a firearm charge. The defendant challenged the breadth of a warrant that allowed the police access to his entire iCloud account.

According to the facts discussed in the recent appellate opinion, the defendant was charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a felon after police discovered a picture of him holding a weapon in his cloud storage. The initial police investigation was for an armed robbery, and they obtained a warrant to search his iCloud account for evidence related to the robbery. Although not enough evidence was found to charge the defendant with the robbery, he was charged with the firearm offense based on his felon status.

The defendant challenged the admission of the photograph into evidence, arguing that the warrant was overbroad and allowed police access to too much information without probable cause. The appellate court agreed that the warrant was insufficient, though the ruling was upheld anyway based on the good faith exception. The good faith exception allows police to make a mistake of law and potentially violate a suspect’s constitutional rights if that officer relied upon a good-faith belief that what they were doing was constitutional. The appeals court was sympathetic to the officer’s conduct because searches of cloud storage systems are relatively new, and with evolving technology comes evolving laws. As a result of the appellate opinion, the defendant will be required to serve his sentence.

Continue reading →

Defending against sex crime allegations in Florida can be an uphill battle. Florida defendants have the right to a trial by jury, however, selecting a jury in a sex crime prosecution can be especially difficult, as many members of the public may have a bias against anyone accused of a sex crime, regardless of what the evidence demonstrates. A Florida appellate court recently ruled on an appeal by a defendant who claimed his objections during the jury selection process were illegally denied, resulting in a conviction.

The defendant in the recently decided case was arrested and charged with sexual battery. Before his trial, the defendant and prosecution went through jury selection, where each side was permitted to exclude jurors, either for cause or for no cause at all. Each party is allowed a limited amount of preemptory strikes, which are done without cause. During jury selection, one prospective juror’s initial response during questioning presented an issue for the defense counsel. She expressed feeling uneasy when she learned about the sexual assault charges against the defendant. This reaction was attributed to her experiences as an elementary school teacher, where she had heard students recount their own experiences of sexual abuse.

When defense counsel moved to strike the juror for cause, the trial court did not recall her statement accurately. Instead, the state prosecutor suggested that the court question Mehr further to rehabilitate her impartiality, which was denied. As a result, the defendant had to use his last peremptory challenge to remove Mehr from the jury. Subsequently, the defendant moved for an additional peremptory challenge to strike another juror he believed to be objectionable. However, at that point, only one prospective juror remained. The trial court expressed concern about having an insufficient number of jurors rejected the request. The defendant was ultimately convicted after the trial.

Continue reading →

Florida law criminalizes a variety of sexual misconduct in addition to the general crimes discussed in the criminal code. Many sexual crimes are established or exacerbated by the specific relationship between the alleged perpetrator and the victim. When someone uses a position of trust or authority to encourage or coerce a vulnerable party into sexual activities, such behavior may be punished more severely under specific criminal statutes. The Florida Court of Appeal recently addressed an appeal filed on behalf of a man who was convicted of felony sex charges after he had sexual relations with an attendee of a substance abuse treatment center where he was employed.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the defendant worked at a substance abuse and mental health treatment center where the alleged victim had checked herself in for substance abuse treatment. The defendant allegedly coerced the victim into having sexual intercourse with him in exchange for a cigarette. After the victim left the treatment center and contacted the police, the defendant was arrested and charged with felony crimes under the Florida Mental Health Act, which criminalized sexual conduct between an employee and a patient who has been held or accepted for mental health treatment at a Florida medical facility. The criminal provisions under which the defendant was charged do not rely on the lack of consent for a valid conviction.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the charges against him and sentenced him to over five years in state prison. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the statute under which he was charged defined the term “patient” in a way that was not consistent with the victim’s status at the time of the alleged misconduct. The appellant argued that a “patient,” as defined by the Mental Health Act, was a person admitted to a facility for a mental health condition. Because the alleged victim was admitted only for substance abuse treatment, the defendant argued that his conviction under the law was not valid.

Sentencing guidelines are used in the state of Florida to advise judges as to appropriate sentences for each crime. The sentencing guidelines often incorporate both aggravating and mitigating circumstances to increase or decrease the level of offense and suggested sentence. The sentencing guidelines for sexual offenses allow for a broad range of sentences for similar crimes. Repeat offenders and defendants convicted of sex crimes involving multiple victims are often subject to substantially increased sentences compared to first-time offenders. Certain aggravating factors that apply to Florida sex crimes sometimes overlap with each other and could result in a sentence being increased multiple times based on the same conduct. A man convicted of several child pornography-related offenses recently appealed his sentence to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that his sentence had been unjustly increased.

The defendant from the recently decided appeal was arrested and charged with several sex crimes related to the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography. After he was convicted of the charges, the man was sentenced to 300 months in federal prison for his crimes. The guidelines used to determine his sentence included two enhancements permitted under federal law. First, the sentence was increased because the charges demonstrated that the defendant had engaged in a “pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse of a minor.” The defendant’s sentence was separately enhanced because he engaged in “a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” Based on the similar language of these enhancements, the defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the two enhancements should not be applied to the same charges, as they are substantially similar to one another and their concurrent application would be impermissible “double counting.”

The Appellate court heard the defendant’s appeal; however, the court was bound by the discretion of the trial court because the defendant did not object to the alleged “double counting” at trial. Based on their required standard of review, the appellate court found no error in the sentencing judge’s application of the two enhancements. Specifically, the court found that the enhancements, while containing similar language, were directed at two very different public and judicial interests. The court found that the first enhancement was designed to punish particularly egregious conduct, while the second enhancement was designed to increase the punishment of habitual offenders who demonstrate a high risk of recidivism. Based on the recent ruling, it appears the defendant will be required to serve his sentence in full.

Florida jails and prisons have historically experienced significant problems with rape and sexual assault among inmates. Additionally, the correctional staff is often involved in sexually assaulting inmates. In response to increasing public concern with the endemic prison rape problem nationwide, the United States Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2003. The PREA mandates reporting requirements and the required responses to allegations or evidence of a sexual assault in a correctional facility. A man who was recently convicted of sexual battery for conduct that was reported to authorities based upon the PREA requirements has challenged his conviction in the Florida Court of Appeal.

The defendant in the recently decided appeal was convicted after being arrested for allegedly assaulting his cellmate while the two of them were inmates at a Florida correctional facility. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant demanded that the victim perform sexual acts on him, physically assaulted the victim when he attempted to resist and threatened the victim with escalating attacks to be committed by others if the victim did not cooperate. The defendant was tried for sexual battery, which requires a threat of serious harm or pain to coerce sexual activity. A jury found that the defendant committed sexual battery based on the threats and physical injuries to the victim as reported under the PREA.

The defendant appealed his conviction to the Florida Court of Appeal, arguing that any assault committed or threatened by the defendant was not capable of causing serious injury or pain as the statute requires. Further, the defendant argued that any threats of violence were not authentic because the two men were detained in a secure facility, and no other inmates could reasonably be seen as a threat to the victim. The appellate court soundly rejected the defendant’s arguments. Noting that the victim had visible injuries and reportedly received escalating threats from the defendant, the court held that a reasonable jury could infer that the victim suffered serious pain, or the threat thereof. As a result of the appellate opinion, the defendant’s conviction will stand.