The Pennsylvania Superior Court isn't buying the argument that a man who viewed child pornography on his computer, but didn't save images, couldn't be charged with possession of child pornography. A 7-2 en banc panel reversed a prior three-judge panel that found, in an issue of first impression, that there was not sufficient evidence to show that Anthony Diodoro downloaded or saved images of child pornography he viewed.
August 24, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The Pennsylvania Superior Court isn’t buying the argument that a man who viewed child pornography on his computer, but didn’t save the images, couldn’t be charged with possession of child pornography.
A 7-2 en banc Superior Court panel in Commonwealth v. Diodoro reversed a prior three-judge panel that found there was not sufficient evidence to show Anthony Diodoro downloaded or saved the images of child pornography he viewed.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
