Hey Folks! I realize I'm going to 'out' myself as a noob with this question, but what's the deal with "Wizard", and "The Trailer Park: The Sixth Year?" Or, is that a taboo question?
Hey Folks! I realize I'm going to 'out' myself as a noob with this question, but what's the deal with "Wizard", and "The Trailer Park: The Sixth Year?" Or, is that a taboo question?
Not a taboo question as such, just a bit shy on details. I'm not sure when he's due out, but last I heard he was in a federal prison for a few years. Not sure if he'll be allowed Internet access when he gets out, either.
"No less than 6 years and no more than 9 years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary."
http://www.sheridanmedia.com/news/justice-huntley-rinck10555
There well may have been federal charges but if so I haven't found anything about them.
Wouldn't pressing Federal charges be double jeopardy? Is having pictures on your computer a federal crime? He defended himself, almost certainly a mistake. He didn't take any pictures, he subscribed to an internet service. No evidence he molested anyone. The prosecution witness criticized the stories he wrote. Maybe I should re-read them to see what was objectionable.
The report I saw and remembered was from when (edit addition of when) he was first arraigned and they were talking about federal charges as well. I later heard he was convicted and sent to prison. It would seem they didn't go ahead with the federal charges. His stories involve under age sex, mostly early teens but a couple of them are younger.
Simply possessing child pornography is illegal in the US.
As for the stories, those were discussed because he tried to defend possessing the pictures as research material for the stories.
The stories themselves may (or may not) be legal in the US.
While Congress has made noises about criminalizing "virtual" child porn (I don't know if anything passed or not), SCOTUS(Supreme Court of the United States) allowed an exception to the first amendment for child porn specifically predicated on the harm done to real children in the making of child pornography. It's an open question as to whether or not SCOTUS would uphold a ban on virtual child porn against a first amendment challenge.
I'm not a lawyer but the short answer is no, it would not be double jeopardy as I understand it. I don't want to expound what I "think" too much, I could be very wrong. But, there would be two different laws involved, one state, one federal. They would be worded slightly differently, even though the root (accused) action is the same.
There are many reasons why some "events" are prosecuted in one jurisdiction or the other, too many to list. I don't think it's the norm to do both, though it does happen.
Pure speculation - no federal charges (which usually have tougher sentences and less lenient early release policies) may have been the reason for the no contest plea.
From what I've seen and read in the past you can not be charged, under criminal law, a second time for an act you've already been tried on - even if it's under a different law. The key aspect is the act itself. (Before anyone mentions OJ, the second set of charges were under civil law not criminal law). Often a person will be charged under both state and federal laws, but only one will be used for the trial hearing. However, when there are multiple activities that come under a number of laws they'll often pick and choose which law for which activity. I remember one case from years ago where some committed several armed hold-ups in different states, the robberies were charged under state laws while federal laws were used to charge them with transporting stolen goods and unregistered firearms across state borders. Two different act, but related, and charged under two sets of laws. The person did one term, got released to the other group and into a different prison.
It's also my understanding they prefer to charge and try under federal laws where they can do so and make a sure conviction, for a number of reasons.
................
I'm sort of whistling in the dark here on this case because I don't know the actual federal laws involved. However, from the past reports on the cases against Red Rose and Frank the federal laws were used because they could prove transfer of data across state borders. If they didn't have an air-tight case under the federal laws they'd drop them and go with the state laws because they had an air-tight case under state law.
The problem for Mr. Wizard here is the type of pictures and videos he had. If they were just young looking adult actresses (there are quite a few) that were posing or having sex, it would've been fine. Also if the pictures of the kids weren't sexual... again, he'd be fine. Yes, I just said that. The fact of the matter is that he had a number of pictures and videos of kids involved in sexual activities, and in the US that's a No-no. The US's pornography act means any pornographic material has to be 18+. Based on what he had, it's more than likely when he is released, and it'll be on parole, or probation, he won't be allowed any "Computer" or device that can be classified as a "computer". On top of that, he may have to register as a sex offender.
In the United states, the only thing I can possibly think of, at the moment, is if a boy who recently turned 18 (past year) or so, had an underaged girlfriend, then it MIGHT fall under the Romeo and Juliet laws, but then again, I'm not a lawyer.
The fact he was convicted means they had the evidence. But it comes down to which set of laws they had the better evidence for, and who wanted to pay for the prosecution and time inside. After that, you get additional things likes rules of evidence, that can vary between legislations - take the OJ case, the evidence that was ruled as not permissible in the criminal case was allowed to be used in the civil case because they had different rules of evidence laws.
I agree with what you have to say about computer access, although a lot will depend on the laws at the time of sentencing and if he comes out on probation or parole or not. In New South Wales if you get out early on parole / probation the board can set all sorts of rules on you for the time of your parole, and they can set that term for longer. For example: you can be released on parole 2 years early and be put on restrictions that apply for the next 5 years. But, if you serve your full time they can't place any restrictions on you unless they were part of the law on the day you were charged. I've known of cases where it was to the advantage of the person to refuse parole and serve the full time to avoid some restrictions the board was insisting on.
Regardless, I doubt we'll get to know what restrictions, if any, until such time he's out again and able to use the Internet - if at all.
..........
Mind you, the various laws that deny use of a computer and the Internet are going to come under a lot of fire soon because there are moves afoot on the International stage to have basic computer and Internet access declared a basic human right. I know here in Australia you can't deal with any government department unless you are either in one of the state capital cities or you have Internet access. Few actual offices outside the capitals, and phone rooms are an hour or more wait to be told they'll call you back - often sometime next year.
Ah yes. one of the three big lies.
I am from the government, I am here to help you.
And the check is in the mail.
And I won't come in your mouth.
In polite company sometimes
I will respect you in the morning.
I am from the government, I am here to help you.
the above isn't a lie, they just leave of the ending of into poverty, prison, and an early grave.
From what I've seen and read in the past you can not be charged, under criminal law, a second time for an act you've already been tried on - even if it's under a different law.
That's true, but the US Supreme Court has held that double jeopardy does not apply across jurisdictions. So yes, you can be tried and convicted by both the Feds and a State for the same acts.
I was under the impression that the across jurisdictions aspect only came into effect when the act was one where it moved across two or more jurisdictions (well, that's how it was once explained to me by US Air Force officer). The sort of event is a car chase, the one act may go through multiple counties and across state borders, although it was the one car being chased all the way each county and state can charge, try, and convict for the part of it that happened within their jurisdiction; ditto transporting illicit drugs across state borders or county borders. While an event that takes place in one place but can be covered under laws from multiple jurisdictions were not cross jurisdiction events as per that ruling. The officer was studying US law but not yet qualified. It came up in a discussion about certain events on the media then.
It would be nice to get a clear statement on it what does qualify as across jurisdictions.
Edit to add:
Seem you're right DS.
Just found some research that the US supreme court also ruled on dual sovereignty and it saw the states as having sovereign rights of their own separate to the federal sovereign rights. Which means the argument about state vs federal sovereign rights all those people died for back in the 1860s has now been decided the other way by the US Supreme Court.
While an event that takes place in one place but can be covered under laws from multiple jurisdictions were not cross jurisdiction events as per that ruling.
My understanding is that where a given act is covered by state and federal laws, the US government and the state are always separate jurisdictions for double jeopardy purposes.
State vs Federal is the only way you can have an act that takes place in one location covered by multiple jurisdictions. City/county/state are never considered separate jurisdictions for double jeopardy.
State vs Federal
see the edit comment. This isn't a cross jurisdiction issue you're talking about, but a cross sovereignty issue - a different horse with a different colour, but runs the same way.