Ads by Yahoo!

" While I don't condone child sex in any way, I do however have a problem with this guy going to prison, and basically having his life ruined...over a printed image. Amazing! "

" No matter what the local judge says. Mr. Skelton is not allowed to be in possession of child porn under federal law. Both the judge and Mr. Skelton may find themselves in an interesting position while violating federal child porn laws. It is like turning over the actual cocaine to a defense lawyer and it is unheard of. I hope the U.S. Attorney's office is whatching this. What about the vicims in this case whose pictures we are talking about. If the court allows these pictures to be handed out then they are allowing for continued victimization ! I can't wait until the other shoe drops !!!! "

" It is not about truth in Court. It is about lawyer win/loss records. The restrictions on substantiative facts of a case are such that very seldom is the truth allowed to come fully out. It is more about procedural law than substantiative law. For the SA it is about conviction rates. For the defense attorneys, it is about acquittal record, because that is how they build a track record, hence a client base, hence money, money, money. If the SA can get an innocent person to plead out of Court to a lessor offense, then they will convict an known innocent person just for the conviction. If a defense attorney knows their client is guilty, they will seek to suppress evidence and restrict witness testimony to as few words as possible to keep the truth from coming out. It is not about truth. To lawyers it is a money making game. "

" I seems to me then that that would mean the prosecutor is just more out for a conviction then instead of justice and a fair trial. "

" surprised they didnt try to pick up the cleaning lady for taking pics of the pics with her camera phone haha "

" I don't know if it happened in this case, or if it was a similar case, but I heard of a prosecutor who filed a motion to keep the defense from seeing the evidence, because it would be like giving them contraband. The prosecution argued it would be like allowing the defense team for a drug dealer have possession of a bag of cocaine or something. I'm pretty sure the judge did not agree with her. "

" They are to mussy up all evidence that is being planned to be used in court during what is called the discovery process. While it would be ideal for the defense if Skelton could just look at the materials sooner so he would have more time to come up with possible explanations and rebuttals and such. Most of the time, either side will exercise their right to wait until they absolutely have to give up the evidence. "

" this isn't an "alleged" crime. the "defendant" admitted upon arrest that the "material in question" is his. "

" in cases of child pornography it gets really micromanaged (as far as the law is concerned). they (the states attorney and PD) can actually be charged with distribution and possession of child pornography. Sounds idiotic since it would be needed for the case, but that's the way the law was written. "

" he was been asking but the states attorney was not giving it to him. the lawyer had to go in front of a judge for a hearing in order to force the SA to hand over the evidences. SA said they did not wish to hand out photo, etc that had kids in sex acts to anyone. SA was trying to pull one on the lawyer and he is way better than the SA office. "

" How come Skelton didn't already have this material??? Isn't that part of the judicial system???? "