U.S. v. James, 55 M.J. 297

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Generally

1. the definition of “child pornography” in 18 USC § 2256(8) and the prohibitions in 18 USC § 2252A are constitutional and do not infringe on speech protected by the First Amendment
2. the definition of “child pornography” found in 18 USC § 2256(8) creates a content-based restriction, but suppressing the “virtual” or apparent child pornography trade is a compelling interest that justifies the expanded definition of “child pornography” found in the federal statute

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. in a guilty plea context, the factual circumstances on the record objectively supported appellant’s guilty plea that actual minors were pictured in violation of 18 USC § 2252A; specifically: (1) appellant pleaded guilty to a violation of the statute; (2) appellant admitted that actual minors were in the charged pictures; (3) the military judge explained the statutory requirement that the pictures were of minors; (4) the photographic exhibits supported appellant’s admissions; (5) appellant admitted he went to web sites looking for pictures of “pre-teens; and (6) appellant visited chat rooms where pictures of minors were regularly requested and provided

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: United States Code

1. the definition of “child pornography” in 18 USC § 2256(8) and the prohibitions in 18 USC § 2252A are constitutional and do not infringe on speech protected by the First Amendment
2. the definition of “child pornography” found in 18 USC § 2256(8) creates a content-based restriction, but suppressing the “virtual” or apparent child pornography trade is a compelling interest that justifies the expanded definition of “child pornography” found in the federal statute
3. Title 28 USC § 455 governs the recusal of judges and is applicable to cases involving the actions of appellate military judges