Families of SOs Community Group

WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...

1,307 Members
11,281 Posts
0 Online
Personal Challenges
/ Families of SOs Support Group

Important Update on Civil Litigation Against CP Of

AllenbaughLaw
AllenbaughLaw
An interesting development in the Doe v. Alter case. One of the defendants' federal public defenders was able to stay defendant his client in this civil action--a unique occurrence in my experience. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the civil action on jurisdiction grounds: essentially, he argued that a Maryland court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a defendant where the conduct alleged occurred outside of Maryland, and the defendant never resided in Maryland otherwise. The court agreed and dismissed the action against the defendant, but without prejudice (meaning the plaintiffs can re-file at a later time if they have new and sufficient facts for the court to exercise jurisdiction). I spoke with the defender representing the client this morning and he advised that the court believed the reasons for dismissing that one defendant may apply to virtually all the defendants (save, of course, for any who were convicted in Maryland). So, if you have or know of someone involved in this litigation, it would be prudent for them to discuss with whoever represented them at trial or the plea stage (especially if a public defender) to see if they could also represent them as well here. Or alternatively, for them to join the Motion to Dismiss Roberts (Doc. No. 44 on PACER) pro se. By the way, the lead plaintiffs' attorney, Steve Kelley, is a victims rights advocate (apparently a close family member of his was murdered by an SO).
Advocate2
Advocate2
Sorry Allenbaugh but my legal-ize is lacking - is this a good thing or bad? LOL
babybb24
babybb24
don't understand all this but allenbaugh my son has cp charges in NC he took plea deal is there anything you advise to discuss with his attorney?
aladdin4d
aladdin4d
This is a very good thing at this point.
jackiecook
jackiecook
Thanks Allen for the update. There are a lot of us interested in anything to do with c.p. charges and litigation. I am hoping this is one of many decisions of it's kind.

It would be nice if someone could break down the case of Doe vs Alter, I have not had the time to read all that legalguardian posted, a brief outline would be helpful.
AllenbaughLaw
AllenbaughLaw
In a nutshell, the plaintiffs (two children) in Doe v. Alter are seeking compensation for the damages they allege they suffered as a result of the defendants merely viewing CP that involved them (the plaintiffs). This often comes up in the restitution portion of criminal sentencing, and it is almost always rejected by courts for the simple reason that the plaintiffs cannot show that a defendant merely viewing CP involving the victim somehow causes the victim additional and distinct harm. It is not unlike someone taking a picture or video of a bad car accident showing the injuries suffered by the victims of the car accident, and then those pics/vids are posted online, and then years later someone who likes looking at car accidents finds those same pics/vids. The original victims of in the car accident would now allege that the mere viewing of those pics/vids by a third-party years later has caused them more psychological harm/stress. That's the Doe v. Alter case in general. What I was discussing specifically with respect to jurisdiction is that courts can only hear cases where a substantial portion of the conduct occurred in their district. Let's say you're from Maryland, and get in a car accident in California involving only California residents. You return home and you try to sue in a Maryland court. The Maryland court would dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction--the case has nothing to do with Maryland, and further, the Maryland court can't get jurisdiction over a California resident in this case. A defendant in Doe v. Alter essentially successfully made that argument: the victims are in Maryland, but he has always resided in another state, his CP conviction occurred in another state, and so any alleged conduct on his part that may have caused the victims injuries did not occur in Maryland. The judge agreed (although it will allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint if they find facts tying the defendant to Maryland) and therefore dismissed the case without prejudice. This rationale can apply to virtually all of the defendants (save for those who were convicted in Maryland). So IT IS A GOOD ORDER.
Advocate2
Advocate2
Thank you Allenbaugh - the scenario you presented made it very clear! Of course this means that the victims in CP have to be identified correct? I have never been a victim but I would think that as one I would push instead for the government and law enforcement to work at removing the pics from circulation period. If the continued viewing of these pics is indeed a continued harm to them as claimed then it will never stop until the pics are destroyed. I know that many are from other countries etc. and I know there are thousands (probably millions) of them out there - but I also know that many of them are identified by long numbers and I would certainly think that those with identified victims would certainly be recoverable. What about when law enforcement views them?