State v. DeSantis - Issue Statute of Limitations for Distribution of Illegal Illegal Porn Videos In NJ For a Sex Crimes Prosecution

The New Jersey Appellate Division has reiterated  that the statute of limitations for the prosecutions of distributions of illegal pornography commences on the date the defendant actually distributed same, not the date of the age of the minors or the date the photos were taken.  The child pornography statute specifically reads that the time to prosecute expires, if a victim is below the age of eighteen at the time of the offense, to either five years after the victim attains the age of eighteen or two years after the victim discovers the offense, whichever is later.  In State v. DeSantis, App. Div.  Defendant was indicted and charged with four counts of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child (distribution of child pornography) and fourth-degree endangering the welfare of a child (possession of child pornography). Defendant contends that the trial judge erred by not granting his motion to dismiss the indictment as barred by the statute of limitations period. The appellate panel disagrees. If a victim is below the age of eighteen at the time of the offense, the limitation period expands to either five years after the victim attains the age of eighteen or two years after the victim discovers the offense, whichever is later. Here, the limitations period is five years. The photographs were many years old. The panel does not accept defendant's reading into the statute a limitation provision of two years after discovery by law enforcement officers of the offense. Nor does the panel interpret the statute to measure the limitation period on the age of the actual unknown children depicted.

 

Submitted by Child Pornography Defense Attorney, Jeffrey Hark

         

Capers v. Governor of New Jersey, Third Cir. (per curiam) (8 pp.)

FEDERAL COURT CRIMINAL LAW — CORRECTIONS

Capers v. Governor of New Jersey, Third Cir. (per curiam) (8 pp.)

 

Submitted by New Jersey Sex Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

The 3^RD CIRCUIT HAS affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a  CRIMINAL DEFENDANT’S TRANSFER TO THE Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center. 

Plaintiff, a state prison inmate, appeals the District Court's dismissal of his complaint asserting violations of his civil rights arising out of his incarceration at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center. The court affirms the dismissal of his claims regarding the posting of his name on the sex offender registry, his transfer to the ADTC, and the denial of his request to be transferred out of the ADTC as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The dismissal of his Eighth amendment claims of inadequate medical treatment is affirmed because, inter alia, he failed to allege that anyone at the ADTC acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The dismissal of his Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim is affirmed in part and reversed in part because his allegation that he has lost work credits and special privileges for failing to participate in treatment does not rise to the requisite level of compulsion to state a claim for a Fifth Amendment violation and, to the extent that Capers is seeking damages for already-lost commutation time due to his refusal to participate in treatment, his § 1983 claim is barred by the favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, but  to the extent that he seeks an injunction to prevent future losses of commutation time, he might be able to proceed and his complaint provides adequate notice of his claim. [Filed May 7, 2013]  The message to take from this decision, again, based on the long line of cases involving civil commitment and sex offender registry, is that once the defendant pleads guilty and or is found guilty, the court’s imposition of the Megan’s Law’s requirements will not be disturbed by any appellate court and the defendant’s efforts will be denied.

 

Timothy Seidel Denied Bail Reduction in Case Involving Death of Millville Police Officer

Submitted by Jeffrey Hark of the Hark and Hark Law Offices

BRIDGETON — Timothy Seidel, the Commercial Township man charged in connection with the death of Patrolman Christopher Reeves, was denied a reduction in his bail Friday at the Cumberland County Courthouse.

Seidel, 24, of Laurel Lake was indicted on May 8, by a Cumberland County grand jury on two counts of aggravated manslaughter— one, "by fleeing or attempting to elude law, did cause the death of Reeves" and two, "recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life did cause the death," according to the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office.

The accident, which occurred early on July 8, 2012, left Patrolman Christopher Reeves, an eight-year veteran of the Millville police department, dead after Timothy Seidel's vehicle collided into Reeves' police cruiser at the intersection of 3rd and Broad streets, killing Reeves on impact.

The accident also left Reeves' partner, Johnathan Seidel (no relation to the accused) with serious injuries.

Assistant Prosecutor Mike Ostrowski's recommended that Seidel's bail not be reduced — which currently stands at $400,000.

Cumberland County Superior Court Judge Darrell Fineman denied Seidel's request for bail to be reduced.

The prosecution also introduced new findings by the State Police Fatal Accident Unit that Seidel was driving 70 mph at the time of impact with Reeves' vehicle. The prosecution also obtained that Seidel's blood alcohol content was .16 at the time of the incident.

Jeffrey Hark of the Cherry Hill firm Hark & Hark represented Seidel.

Seidel remains at the Cumberland County Jail on $400,000 bail cash or bond.

The next hearing is a status conference scheduled for July 22.

As a result of new findings, Ostrowski believes the case against Seidel has become stronger.

---

Originally posted by NJ.com staff writer Spencer Kent