STOPPING LAWYERS FROM SHOWING CHILD PORN IN PUBLIC SESSIONS

A bill to block defense attorneys in child pornography cases from showing suspect materials in public hearings or forums still awaits its first committee hearings.

Assembly Bill 204 failed in May to get its first hearing before the Assembly Public Safety Committee, but a subsequent vote approved reconsideration of the measure.

It would block attorneys in child pornography and other obscenity cases cases from showing the materials in question in public sessions, but it would allow them private review in preparing defenses for clients in such cases. However, they would have to review them in the presence of court-appointed or other law enforcement officers.

The measure didn't single out any medium but is presumed to cover video, photographic, and print materials.

The measure would also limit obscenity case attorneys to merely viewing the material if the case in question involves child pornography. They would also have to show "appropriateness" before they can make any copies of the materials, though they could not distribute those copies indiscriminately.

Current California law calls for sentences up to a year in jail or between 16 months and 2-3 years in state prison, and fines no larger than $10,000, for those convicted of producing and distributing child pornography, defined as depicting those 18 or younger in sexual acts. California law also says that for certain specific offences, child pornography under that definition doesn't have to be "proven" obscene.

A committee analysis suggests the bill would not leave defense attorneys vulnerable to charges of trafficking themselves in child pornography or other obscene materials, since the lawyers aren't exactly interested in random duplication of the materials.

The bill also exempts prosecutors from the same restrictions. The committee analysis notes the nearest to such an instance on record was the 1996 case of a Sacrament County prosecutor accused of illegally possessing child pornography. The case was thrown out when it was found the materials in question were obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure.