No. 13-2688, C.C.No. 12-CR-00141-001
While on supervised release for a previous conviction, Hussman was indicted on three counts of knowingly distributing child pornography, three counts of knowingly receiving child pornography and one count of knowingly possessing child pornography. Loehrs was hired to conduct a forensic examination of two computers and five removable storage devices. Although Loehrs found convincing evidence of possession, there was no forensic evidence that files of child pornography were knowingly received or distributed. At trial, in which Loehrs was not called to testify, the government voluntarily dismissed the three counts of knowing receipt and a jury convicted Hussman on the remaining counts. On appeal, the Court vacated the conviction for distributing child pornography stating that it cannot be sustained without evidence that another person actually downloaded or obtained the images and the government had presented no evidence in that regard. The mere act of placing files into a shared folder available to users on a file sharing network does not constitute distribution of child pornography.
Download the PDF: US v Husmann
No. 2010 WL 6546776 (Pa.Super.)
A special agent in the Office of the Attorney General posing online as a thirteen year old female chatted with an unknown suspect who sent the agent several web cam videos. Based on an IP address associated with Stossel, numerous computers were seized from his residence and he was charged with eighteen counts of sexual abuse of children and five counts of unlawful contact with a minor. The case went to trial and Loehrs’ testified that, based on her independent forensic examination of the evidence, there was no evidence of any web cam transmissions or chats on any of the computers seized from Stossel’s residence. Nevertheless, Stossel was convicted by a jury on all counts. The verdict was appealed and the Court granted Stossel a new trial stating that “Ms. Loehrs’ testimony demolished the Commonwealth’s theory that it was Appellant who engaged in the online chats with Agent Eger and sent her the webcam transmissions in question. Undoubtedly someone did, but it wasn’t Appellant.”
Download the PDF: Appellant Brief