Shelly, this makes no sense to me! I've never heard of such a thing. I'm sorry I have no answers, but I wanted to let you know that we are all here for you. Welcome to the family.

I have never heard of this either. It sounds very, very strange. Maybe it's a good thing, though. Maybe the Feds are finally realizing some people are getting unfairly punished for something that's not their fault. The word UNintended would seem to indicate they are aware of this fact. Maybe they're going to give him some kind of a "slap on the wrist" kind of sentence that will allow everyone to save face.

I'm just guessing, but I hope I'm right.

I've never heard of this either it's new to me also

Do you think maybe the feds can't turn the case over to the state to prosecute because there is no 'intending to view' crime to charge him with at the state level? Maybe the investigators have just enough to scare you both about a long sentence for a sex offense/ destroying your lives etc.your husband will just make a deal and plead guilty and they won't even have to prove their case in court?

"intention to view' sounds nuts to me. My advise is do not help them fish for more information/ evidence, do not 'explain." that only helps them make their case which, based on the information your giving us here, sounds pretty flimsy.

Threatened with a prejudiced jury and a long prison sentence people feel like they have to take a deal even if the charge is "intention."

The best advise I know is do not talk to them about anything, ever. Make them go through your attorney period. What do they say on TV? Lawyer up.

I just don't understand how you can have "Intent to view" on an "Unintentional visual". It's like saying I didn't mean to fall but I meant to break my arm when I did. I feel like we are part of this huge quota they need and they just won't say " Hey sorry we screwed up". How can someone be guilty of a gosh darn pop up?? How can you "Intend" to view one???? I feel physically I'll.

I posted on your original thread but the only other thing I can say is DO NOT trust them at all! If they decide to drop charges for instance do not just run in the other direction - get it in writing that they can never charge him with this again - make sure the lawyer makes it legal - also document everything!

Most of your CP statutes mention "attempt to view" as being a crime. But many list "attempt to access" also as a crime. Many statutes also mention "knowingly" which means they would not prosecute a popup.

I don't see how they can prosecute on the "unintentional visual" since the name applies that the images were not accessed intentionally.

But they may also be alleging that he was looking for CP with an "attempt to access" the images, which is a crime. Please follow the link below. You will see in this federal prosecution that the government convicted and sentenced a man with "attempt to access".....

"A Greenville man was sentenced on April 17, 2014, on one count of attempt to access with intent to view visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct...."

http://tinyurl.com/h4px22h

This is the only possible explanation I can see, but I would definitely make his attorney explain these charges.

rewdiazepam

With all the pop up viruses viruses on our computer and with there being only two. Honestly, I am impressed with myself. As bad as my husband and I are (or I should say WERE. After this I am so afraid to click on ANYTHING) about computer pop ups and unknown sender emails, I am shocked that there were only two!!! If we had actually "Intended" to view, I would think there would be a LOT more. :(

Thank You Advocate2.. I was so panicked by the whole mess.... I'm sorry if posting this on my original post and then again by itself was wrong to do. It was not my intention to fill the group with duplicates. :(
I'm not exactly a rebel rule breaker (contrary to h land belief).

I don't know if there are others who don't feel I belong here due to my situation. You should all know... I am not here to judge anyone. Who am I to judge? I'm not going to throw stones. If you've done your time, it should be over. You should be left alone and not ridiculed. Your past is just that... Your past. You don't live there anymore. Guilty or not, at some point in all of our cases there has been in justice and that is why I am here. It's not the crimes or the laws that brought us here. It's the mistreatment and mishandling of our cases.

Did someone say you do not belong here?

I second Advocate2's question...I'm confused here. Who said or gave you the impression you don't have a right to 'belong' on Family and Friends? No one I know of felt 'ridiculed' or judged...why the need to say... "I don't know if there are others who don't feel I belong here due to my situation. You should all know... I am not here to judge anyone." Just asking...JanetM

Everyone who is here has a right to be here. We do not divide this forum or place people in subdivisions according to their situation or need.

We are all equal and no single poster is better or more important than any other poster.
.
Hell, I am not even a registrant anymore, nor do I have a family member involved in the sex offender situation yet I will continue to participate to help and support others.

Frankly, we need all the quality posters we can get. A forum can never have too many posters from different backgrounds coping with diverse situations.

I hope this forum is not getting too big for its britches----as another sex offender forum I know----since that type of thinking destroys the closeness needed for people to lean on each other in the difficult times.

rewdiazepam

Sounds like § 2252A(a)(5)(A) or (B) http://tinyurl.com/zysr65e

(5) either—

(A) in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or on any land or building owned by, leased to, or otherwise used by or under the control of the United States Government, or in the Indian country (as defined in section 1151), knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography; or

(B) knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography that has been mailed, or shipped or transported using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or that was produced using materials that have been mailed, or shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;

§ 2252A(b)(2) adds "attempt" and "conspiracy" to the above

(2) Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, subsection (a)(5) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, but, if any image of child pornography involved in the offense involved a prepubescent minor or a minor who had not attained 12 years of age, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years.

If the attorney is right and the charges are based on a pop-up type scenario then you have a very good chance for a statutory affirmative defense. Really hammer on the computer forensic exam!!! This affirmative defense will really hinge on the details of the exam. If the exam shows there was an attempt made to clear the cache or the charges stem from deleted files that were recovered then this defense will go a long way.

(d)Affirmative Defense.—It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (a)(5) that the defendant—

(1) possessed less than three images of child pornography; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any image or copy thereof—

(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such image.

Here's some resources that might help. The first is a report on prosecution problems

http://tinyurl.com/j8jymeg

This is basically a defense checklist

http://tinyurl.com/gs6lba7

And this was part of a larger seminar and it's just the legal documents but they were prepared by AFPD Colin Fieman. He's one of the attorneys raiding all kinds of hell over the playpen cases.

http://tinyurl.com/zk9xcnh

If anyone has said anything to you about not being here, please PM me or any of the other admins about whom and what was said.

Whew! Alladin4d your research makes sense of all this.