• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

ZMO Law

  • About Us
  • Attorneys
    • ZMO Law Team
    • Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma
    • Tess Cohen
    • Shane Finn
  • Practice Areas
    • Criminal Appeals
    • Civil Rights
    • Healthcare Crimes
    • Sex Crimes
    • Federal Crimes
    • Victims Rights
  • In The News
  • ZMO Law Blog
  • Contact

Mar 16 2014 Child Pornography, Civil Rights Advocacy, Crime and Technology, First Amendment, Prisoners' Rights, Sentencing, Sex Crimes, What's New, White Collar Crime

Proving “Knowing Distribution” of Child Pornography

By Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma

Child pornography is typically distributed in some of the shadier parts of the Internet. One common way to get child pornography is through peer-to-peer file sharing programs like Limewire and Gigatribe. These programs allow users to share their material with each other directly rather than through a central public server. But using peer-to-peer technology can also mean the difference between mere possession of child pornography and distribution, which carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration in federal court.

“Distribution” can also raise a child porn sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines even if the mandatory minimum does not apply. This is called a “sentencing enhancement” and adds more than 20 percent to a given sentence. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was recently called on to determine when the distribution enhancement applies: does the defendant have to know that his peer-to-peer program is making illegal child pornography available to others? The appeals court said yes. In U.S. v. Baldwin, the defendant admitted to the police that he had seen child pornography on his computer. But he denied any awareness that his computer was distributing the material to others. The judge found that he should have known and that the distribution to others was “self-evident.” Not enough for the enhancement to apply, says the Second Circuit. In order to increase the sentence, the sentencing court must make an explicit finding that”a defendant knew that his  use  of  P2P  software  would  make  child‐pornography  files accessible to other users.” Note that this “knowledge requirement” in criminal cases is distinct from intent. The defendant could not have meant to or intended to distribute the illegal pornography; it was enough for the enhancement if he knew it was being distributed.

The case will go back to the district court to determine whether the defendant really did not know that his file-sharing program distributed the material.

Primary Sidebar

Topics

  • Child Pornography
  • Civil Rights Advocacy
  • Crime and Technology
  • First Amendment
  • News
  • Prisoners' Rights
  • Sentencing
  • Sex Crimes
  • What's New
  • White Collar Crime

Search

Recent Entries

  • Welcoming attorney Shane Finn to ZMO Law April 28, 2025
  • Is Matt Gaetz a sex trafficker? November 20, 2024
  • Victory in the Fourth Department September 28, 2024

CONTACT US NOW

NEW YORK: 212-685-0999
24 HOUR: 515-966-5291

Name(Required)
Previous Do I Really Need a Lawyer?
Next Sharlene Morris Joins the ZMO Law PLLC

Footer

ZMO Law PLLC

We serve the following localities: New York City including New York County, Bronx County, Kings County, and Queens County; and Westchester County.

Learn More

Practice Areas
  • Sex Crimes
  • Federal Crimes
  • Civil Rights
  • Health Care Crimes
Contact Us

ZMO Law PLLC
353 Lexington Avenue, Suite 900
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 685-0999

  • linkedin
  • facebook-alt
  • x
  • Criminal Court Process
  • Glossary of Legal Terms
  • NYS Statement of Client’s Rights
  • Criminal Investigation
  • Servicios en Español
  • Reviews
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Copyright © 2025 · ZMO Law PLLC | Sitemap