Unusual for me, but I did a guilty plea case this week.
Going in to the case and throughout the case the client was accused of a lot of offenses, some of which were a course of conduct over a period of time. Not unusual, right, so we had some right and left dates.
So, you are dealing with a government that takes the view you plead to this – X Y Z – or no deal. You get to the point where you say fine. You and the client take the deal.
I always find it interesting when you get to that point in the providency inquiry on this type of specification and the client says that, “I did this, but only up until a date X.” So now we’ve got a problem. The MJ knows but he asks the client why only up until date X, to which the client responds, “I was put in pretrial confinement on date X.” Now we’ve got a real problem, have we busted the deal. You have to wonder, especially when it got through the Article 32, IO, the same way with an accused sitting in front of the IO who is obviously in PTC.
So, I was reading United States v. Doshier today, which has in my view a much more serious problem of government lack of caring when charging. This is a NG involving CP, which is a notorious situation where the government overcharges, or charges-without-caring.
While deliberating, the panel reviewed approximately six hundred images of alleged CP. The panel returned a general verdict finding appellant guilty of the specification as drafted: that is, of knowingly possessing over four hundred images and photographs of CP.
As appellant notes in his brief, some images include depictions of a door, a sign, the back of someone’s head, fully-clothed children, children in bikinis, and images too small to determine their content.
However, we have reviewed every image and are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that at least three hundred of these files constitute CP.