Judge Tena Campbell – Sentencing in child porn case

Judge Tena Campbell sentenced Charles Granere to 60 months in federal prison after previously pleading guilty to transportation of child pornography.

Granere and Matthew Duhamel were charged with transporting, receiving and possessing child pornography for the site, which court documents said featured 9- and 10-year-old girls dressed in sexually provocative and skimpy clothing.

Both men previously argued the pictures were not pornographic because the minors were clothed. However, Judge Campbell pointed out in a ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined nudity was not required to constitute pornography.

Duhamel was convicted after a bench trial in February of charges of transporting, receiving and possessing child pornography. He is scheduled to be sentenced June 19, 2007.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660224588,00.html

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Criminal, Judge Tena Campbell

2 Comments on “Judge Tena Campbell – Sentencing in child porn case”

  1. John Says:

    Craig, can you post a link to the opinion?

    Seems to me though, that jury emotion ruled the day rather than the law. I am not an advocate of child pornography, however I am an advocate of individual rights and the rule of law.

    Just a few weeks ago an man in Orem was arrested for “voyeurism” at a Public Parade. From the articles I found the man was filming specific areas of the children’s body. Now, this type of activity is disturbing, however, video taping a person in a public place, does not met the definition of “voyeurism” under the Utah Code. The only way the man would guilty of “voyeurism” would be if he first had disguised his camera or tried to covertly make the recordings AND the person recorded where in a place where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, this man will probably be convicted by jury emotion and disgust to recording children in public rather than find that in fact, if there was no covert activity or no reasonable expectation of privacy then no crime was committed.

    Though, child molestation and child pornography are horrible things, the Law has to define a line where rights exist and do not exist, so as to protect otherwise LAWFUL behaviour that some find offensive.

    It is a very sad day in America when juries are allowed to ignore the law and rule based on their emotions.

    “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast . . . and if you cut them down . . . d’you really think you could stand upright in the
    winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake”

  2. sober Says:

    The sentence was 5 years in a federal prison for a website that didn’t even feature nudity? The defendant–regardless of what you may “feel” about his actions–obviously had his rights stripped before the trial even commenced. This judge is a disgrace and a crusader deceptively cloaked in the robes of justice. I echo the previous post’s implications regarding this type of legalistic vigilantism. If laws can habitually be subject to ever-increasing creative interpretations in order to validate virtually any emotionally-fueled sentence or personal “sense” of justice, than they are not really laws at all–just loose guidelines. The judge, and those who were complicit, have conspired to skirt the letter of the law.

    Website = bad
    Verdict = worse


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: