Federal Defense Attorneys

Title 18 United States Code makes it illegal it possess, receive and distribute images of child pornography.

You have found Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys who defend indictments in federal court under Title 18 United States Code Sections 2241, 2243, 2244, 2422, 2423, 2251, 2252, 2252A.

Federal search warrants are issued in federal criminal investigations or sting operations that are linked to the search and seize computer evidence stored on hard drives and removable media such as floppy disks, CD-ROMs and Zip disks and web browser history.

Experienced federal criminal defense lawyers may decide a defense forensic examination of digital evidence may be necessary in a particular federal criminal case. In many federal cases, the forensic evidence of a receipt or trafficking case is crucial.

The Assistant United States Attorney must prove the pornographic photos were downloaded on the computer knowingly and intentionally. In other words, can the ASUA prove an intent to share?

Forensics may reveal: categorization, encryption programs, search terms used, communications you were having, length of time involved in the activity, how often the photos were seen.

Under Title 18 United States Code terms like "computer," "distribution," "material," "minor," "sexually explicit conduct," and "images" have specific legal definitions. For example, our experienced federal criminal attorneys know under federal law, "Distribution to a minor" means the knowing distribution to an individual who is a minor at the time of the offense."

Experienced Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys search for departures and variances in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in these types of cases. Seasoned federal criminal defense lawyers know if the federal offense involved the use of a computer, the sentence can be increased by two levels under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

These Federal Defense Attorneys fight against the five year mandatory minimum sentence for receipt and trafficking offenses.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 says the guidelines were meant to further the basic purposes of criminal punishment: deterrence, incapacitation, just punishment, and rehabilitation.

Experienced federal lawyers know the law of federal sentencing requires the federal court judge to choose a sentence that is not greater than necessary and to comply with the purposes of sentencing, including just punishment. Federal defense lawyers know that if a particular case has unique facts or features, the federal sentencing reform act allows the court to depart from the guidelines and sentence outside the range.