We defend possession of child pornography cases. Contact Meyer Van Severen, S.C. at (414) 270-0202.
Possession of child pornography charges carry exceptionally negative stigmas. We understand that facing charges like these is incredibly difficult. Friends, work colleagues, professional contacts, and others quickly judge before understanding your situation. Hiring a criminal defense attorney makes this battle easier. We’re on your side. We don’t judge. And we’re certainly here to help you.
Unfortunately, the charge is also serious. It doesn’t just sound serious. It is. Possession of child pornography in Wisconsin is a Class D felony. That means upon conviction you face a total prison sentence of 25 years. That 25 years breaks down into 15 years initial confinement and 10 years extended supervision. Additionally, courts are required to sentence defendants to at least 3 years initial confinement for each count. Certainly this significant penalty indicates how seriously prosecutors take these cases.
Fortunately, the criminal defense attorneys at Meyer Van Severen, S.C. are just as serious. We regularly defend individuals facing child pornography charges. And we’ve certainly achieved numerous victories for those clients. Prior to a modification of the law, criminal defense lawyer Matthew Meyer even convinced a judge in Fond du Lac to ignore the mandatory minimum requirement. We’re constantly looking for creative, aggressive, intelligent ways to win your case.
Finally, don’t fight possession of child pornography charges alone. The criminal defense lawyers at Meyer Van Severen, S.C. are certainly specialists. We regularly defend pornography cases, sexual assault cases, and other sensitive crimes. Let’s start fighting your case. Call us at (414) 270-0202.
What is possession of child pornography?
Section 948.12 of the Wisconsin Statutes prohibits possession of child pornography. The crime occurs when the defendant “possesses, or accesses in any way with the intent to view, any undeveloped film, photographic negative, photograph, motion picture, videotape, or other recording of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct under all of the following circumstances…”
Sections 948.12(1m)a – c describe the aforementioned circumstances:
- The person knows that he or she possesses or has accessed the material; and
- The person knows, or reasonably should know, that the material that is possessed or accessed contains depictions of sexually explicit conduct; and
- The person knows or reasonably should know, that the child depicted in the material who is engaged in sexually explicit conduct has not attained the age of 18 years.
Certainly this crime is pretty straightforward. Firstly, the defendant possessed some kind of recording. The defendant knew what was on the recording. He knew it contained sexually explicit conduct. And he knew, or should know, that the image showed someone under 18.
But this also certainly begins to explain a way to defend the charge: how did the defendant know the subject was under 18 years old? Certainly in some cases establishing that is relatively simple. But it becomes a lot more difficult in other cases. For example, what if the individual in the picture is 17 years old? We can all tell that a 10 year old is under 18, but what happens as we move closer to that age? Unless the government can produce the person in the picture, they may have a tough time proving the case against you.
