a public defender


CT House Legislature passes bill restricting defense access to evidence

Posted on June 07, 2007 by Gideon

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Update (6/6/07): Well, the Senate passed this travesty too, right before the end of the session (11:30pm, to be exact), without debate. It was placed on the darn consent calendar and passed unanimously. I guess it will be up to a court to decide the Constitutionality of this bit of legislation. Any thoughts out there on why it might be unconstitutional? It’s the same provision from the federal Adam Walsh Act.

Late last night, the CT House passed HB 7269 which contains the following new section:

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) Notwithstanding section 54-86a of the general statutes, in any criminal proceeding, any property or material that constitutes child pornography shall remain in the care, custody and control of the state, and a court shall deny any request by the defendant to copy, photograph, duplicate or otherwise reproduce any property or material that constitutes child pornography so long as the attorney for the state makes the property or material reasonably available to the defendant.

Such property or material shall be deemed to be reasonably available to the defendant if the attorney for the state provides the defendant, the defendant’s attorney or any individual the defendant may seek to qualify to furnish expert testimony at trial, ample opportunity for inspection, viewing, and examination of the property or material at a state facility. For the purposes of this section, “child pornography” shall have the same meaning as in section 53a-193 of the general statutes.

This bill is intended to track a similar provision in the federal Adam Walsh Act. I’m not sure why the legislature would feel it necessary to create this section. What if the defense is that the materials in question are digitally created? How will a defense expert be able to verify the authenticity of the documents, deconstruct them and make copies for trial? I’ll be awaiting the transcripts of the debate on this one.

It now heads to the Senate (which thus far has not placed this bill on its calendar for today).

Sphere: Related Content

RSS feed | Trackback URI

1 Comment »

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Subscribe to comments via email
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

  • N/A

Trackback responses to this post


  • link behavior


  • quick comment

    Latest on Tue, 00:31

    Woman in Black: The green thing cracked me up. Thought I got some bad paint fumes.

    Gideon: It is! Only problem is, I seem to have to approve each one

    Marie: I like this "quick comment" thing. It's like a mix of Post-it note, IM & Twitter. Cool!

    prityladybabe: the money being spent to cover the po's gas, hours of doing check-ins that could help county rds , transportation world

    Gideon: Wondering whether to write a new post now or save it for tomorrow

    » Leave a reply



  • syndication

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button
    AddThis Feed Button

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • pd blog search

  • terms of use

    Nothing on this blog is legal advice.
    Read the Legal Disclaimer and Privacy Policy.
    For the full comments policy, click here.

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
  • Polls

    Please select one

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...
  • stats



  • Meta