For those of you wondering where on earth the bona fide research language that was slipped into CIPA comes from, take a look at People v Heath Daniel Woodward, 116 Cal. App. 4th 821 (2004)
This case focuses on California law, and gives a decent background on how the law developed here and in other states, citing 400 E. Baltimore St., Inc. v. State (1981) 49 Md. App. 147 and United States v. 31 Photographs (S.D.N.Y. 1957) 156 F. Supp. 350 for the derivation of bona fide research ... also discussion of legitimate scientific medical or educational activities.
The upshot for defendant Woodward, who was prosecuted not only for possession of child porn but also for lewd conduct with his young daughter: his convictions were upheld. The appeal was based in part on the lack of a jury instruction to consider the child pornography posession as an aid to legitimate scientific or educational purposes.
The Appellate court found that the lack of such instructions was not prejudicial..."A reasonable jury would not have found defendant's involvement with, and long-term possession of, child pornography to be legitimate scientific or educational research. Had the jury been given the instruction without the additional instructions, it was not reasonably probable that an outcome more favorable to defendant would have resulted." (Opinion by Butz, J., with Scotland, P. J., and Sims, J., concurring.)
Comments