NARSOL fighting strict liability case in Ninth Circuit

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    • #19299 Reply
      Sandy Rozek
      Sandy Rozek

      By Larry and Sandy . . . NARSOL is joining the fight against strict liability offense schemes. An important case from Arizona, May v. Ryan, is pending
      [See the full post at: NARSOL fighting strict liability case in Ninth Circuit]

    • #19363 Reply

      Correct me if I am wrong, but couldnt this have far reaching implications for people that either were convicted or took pleas to online stings such as solicitation and CP cases? From what I have gathered, its seems it would and should because just about all these cases the state never had to prove intent (sexual or in the case of distribution via peer to peer networks that auto share files without knowingly consenting to sharing)

      In november of 2016 the feds updated their federal sentencing guildlines for cp. Now in order to prove intent to distribute 2 factors have to be present. First an actual agreement between 1 party and a second party must have occurred. Secondly, the exchange must have actually occurred. So what this means is peer to peer networks that auto share files without ones knowledge can no longer be used for distribution convictions at the federal level. The guildelines are under sections 2g2.1,2g2.2, and 2g3.1 as clarifying admendments, which makes them automatically retroactive. I am hoping that between the federal updates and the may v ryan case these guidelines for cp distribution as well as other crimes like solicitation online will trickle down to state level and make the state prove intent.

      • #19824 Reply
        Jeremy from Indiana

        I wonder if what you mention in your post might affect me and my overall registration status.

        I was convicted in a federal (military) court of receipt and distribution. The distribution charge rests solely on the peer to peer sharing.

        Indiana does not have a “receipt” offense, so they consider it the same as possession, but one of the charges I was charged with was possession in which I was found not guilty. That point might be moot though because the reason I was found not guilty is because it was found to be “mutiplicious” with receipt.

        In 2010, when I was convicted and sentenced, possession was not a registerable offense in Indiana. This is why I think the prosecutor was so dead set on getting me for distribution. I turned down a deal for this specific reason.

        In 2009, the Indiana Supreme Court declared SORA punitive in the decision of Wallace v. Indiana.

        So, if my distribution charge is invalid now leaving only the receipt charge, and receipt/possession was not a registerable offense at the time of my conviction, then I should be able to be removed from the registry, right?

        I might have to check with an attorney on this one.

    • #19374 Reply

      What impact might this have against charges of “Failure to Register” which due to being an administrative not a criminal felony is also strict liability?

    • #19435 Reply

      This is a very interesting issue I have not seen before. I’ll have to go some digging into this.

      I got in trouble for having consensual sex with an adult. I was a probation officer and she was on probation with my department. I was not her probation officer when we had our relationship. There was no quid pro quo, coercion, threats or anything, which she admitted. But here I am! God I love this country. *sarcasm*

      The problem I have is that there was no proof required that I had coerced or threatened her. It was just assumed that such a relationship is not natural and that for it to occur, the offender surely must have been trying to take advantage of victimize the person on probation.

      I wonder if this ties into the mens rea issues. Yes, I committed the act. BUT….was there any intent to try to harm, take advantage of or victimize someone.

    • #50887 Reply
      John Quinn

      What’s the current status of this case?

Viewing 4 reply threads
Reply To: NARSOL fighting strict liability case in Ninth Circuit
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">