Federal Child Pornography Lawyer

Child pornography cases almost always involve computer-related evidence. Any defense lawyer who handles these cases must be well-versed in reading computer data and forensic reports and must have knowledge about the Federal Child Pornography Sentencing Guidelines. Without such a knowledge base, it is impossible to recognize data that can prove someone’s innocence.

It is also extremely important that the defense lawyer hire a computer forensics expert to attack the government’s expert and help build a defense. We work with the leading computer forensics experts in the country, and we will use any resources necessary to win our clients’ cases.

Cary Citronberg and Jess Johnson have long been recognized for their success in defending against internet sex crimes, especially federal child pornography charges. Both are routinely selected as Super Lawyers, and Cary often teaches courses on defending child pornography cases to other criminal lawyers through Continuing Legal Education programs.

Under federal law, child pornography is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256 as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor under the age of 18. This includes photographs, videos, and digital images.

The term ‘sexually explicit conduct’ includes sex, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, and lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or public area.

Child pornography cases are typically charged as possession, receipt, or distribution under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 or 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. These are referred to as ‘non-production cases.’

If child pornography was produced during the offense, the defendant will likely be charged with production under 18 U.S.C. § 2251. Production cases carry more severe penalties.

The vast majority of non-production child pornography cases in federal court are charged as either possession or distribution. Only about 10% of these cases are charged as receipt.

• Simple possession. These cases involve an individual simply possessing an image or video depicting child pornography or child sexual abuse. To obtain a conviction, the government has to show that the defendant possessed the image, that the image was produced using a minor, that the minor was engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and that the image was transported across state lines (or that the computer, cell phone, or electronic device was shipped in interstate commerce). Simple possession has a sentencing range of 0 to 20 years in prison.

• Receipt and Distribution. As the title implies, these offenses involve an individual receiving the image or distributing the image to someone else. These offenses have a sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison. While they carry the same sentencing range, distribution is considered to be more severe than receipt.
• Production or attempted production. This offense requires the prosecution to prove that the individual used the minor to engage sexually explicit conduct and that it was “for the purpose of producing” the image. These cases are generally put in a different category altogether due to harsher penalties. Production has a sentencing range of 15 to 30 years in prison.

Possession of child pornography carries no mandatory minimum sentence and only requires evidence showing that a person controlled the image (e.g., the image was on a person’s cell phone). Receipt is a more serious offense. It carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence and requires additional evidence showing where the defendant received the image from (e.g., a website or peer-to-peer program).

Prosecutors often use the five-year mandatory minimum required by a receipt charge in order to strong-arm defendants into plea deals. In some federal districts, the U.S. Attorney’s Office will allow a defendant to enter a plea to simple possession if the plea is entered before the case is indicted. This practice has unfortunately led to many defendants being convicted without their cases being fully investigated for potential defenses. In other federal districts, receipt is routinely charged in order to increase the odds of a stiff prison sentence (at least 5 years).

The government often charges receipt when there’s evidence a defendant actively downloaded, accepted, or saved files — not just had them on a device. Skilled defense counsel will challenge the receipt charge whenever the facts support a possession-only theory, because the difference can mean five mandatory years in federal prison versus the possibility of probation or a lower-end sentence. Forensic analysis of how files arrived on a device — automatic caching, browser previews, malware, shared devices, or peer-to-peer software behavior — is frequently the deciding factor.

Transportation of child pornography occurs when an image is transported across state lines. While this include driving or flying an electronic device (such as a cell phone) across state lines, it is often charged where a person uploads an image to a cloud server such a Dropbox or Google Drive. A transportation charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years and a maximum sentence of 20 years.

Most child pornography investigations begin months or even years before law enforcement shows up at the door with a search warrant. In most cases, the investigation begins when law enforcement or a company like Yahoo, Google, DropBox, Kik, or others identify a user’s IP (Internet Protocol) address as being associated with a download or upload of child pornography.

After an IP address is identified, the image or video is normally sent to NCMEC (the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) which will investigate the image and determine if it matches a known child victim. NCMEC will then send the report to law enforcement for further investigation.

Law enforcement will then get a search warrant for the residence linked to the IP address and seize all of the computers, cell phones, hard drives, and other electronic equipment in the home. The police will usually also try to interview the residents of the home to obtain a confession or admission. It’s important to note that sex crimes are considered federal crimes, and any accusations or charges related to child pornography are treated with the utmost seriousness under federal law.

Yes, accidentally downloading child pornography can lead to charges. An experienced criminal defense lawyer will use computer forensics experts to show that the download was unintentional. If hired early enough, it is possible that a good defense lawyer can prevent charges from ever being filed.

Law enforcement typically obtains the physical address of individuals believed to possess child pornography by first obtaining their IP (Internet Protocol) address. This digital address allows a computer to send and receive data across the internet. Once obtained, law enforcement can determine the Internet Service Provider (such as Verizon or AT&T) and then subpoena the provider for subscriber information, including a physical address.

If law enforcement has a search warrant for your home, you must allow them to enter. You should attempt to verify that the warrant is for the correct address and that is signed by a judge.

During the search, law enforcement will likely attempt to question you, ask you to unlock electronic devices, or ask for your consent to search an area or particular device. You should keep in mind that you have the absolute right to remain silent and to deny any such requests.

As soon as possible, you should contact an experience federal criminal defense lawyer. A defense lawyer will contact the lead federal agent and prosecutor assigned to the case to learn more about the investigation, work to prevent charges from being filed, and try to get any items that were taken returned to you.

Many child pornography cases are the result of a peer-to-peer file sharing programs (also called P2P) like BitTorrent, Ares, Shareaza, or eMule. These programs allow users to easily share image and videos, including child pornography. Law enforcement has its own versions of these programs which allows it to see which IP addresses are sharing or downloading child pornography.

The vast majority of the pornography on these programs is legal adult pornography. The files, however, are not always accurately labeled. Images can also be bundled into larger files. This can cause a user to accidentally download child pornography, sparking an investigation and possible arrest. Even if the user attempts to delete the child porn, the image or video will likely remain in the computer’s unallocated space which law enforcement can find with special software.

To prove that the download was an accident, we have to look at the file and folder properties of the image. An independent computer forensics expert is often necessary to be able to explain how the image got onto the machine in the first place and to prove our client’s innocence.

Yes, hiring an independent computer forensics expert is often necessary to fight child pornography charges. The government’s expert (usually an analyst from the FBI or Homeland Security) will prepare a forensic report detailing the images found on a hard drive. Without hiring an independent expert to review the electronic devices, a defendant has no way to effectively challenge the government’s report and expert.

Our computer forensics experts review the devices and help us build an ironclad defense. An independent expert can help us show that our client accidentally downloaded child pornography or that our client had no knowledge that a particular image or video was on the machine. Our experts do this by using specialized software, such as FTK or EnCase, to retrace the steps that led to the image or video being on the computer.

Our experts can also detail internet history, search terms that were used, dates and times accounts were accessed, whether viruses and malware were present, and whether a computer was remotely accessed. All of these factors can give rise defenses that can lead to a dismissal, acquittal, or reduction. We fortunately have access to the best-trained computer forensics experts in the country, and we have been able to prove many our clients’ innocence due to their expertise.

The primary defense in a child pornography case is that the download was either unknowing or accidental. An independent computer forensics expert can help show that someone did not intentionally seek out child pornography by reconstructing how the image came to be on the electronic device.

When a user visits a website, all of the photographs and videos are automatically downloaded to the computer’s hard drive.

The government has to be able to show that a defendant “knowingly” possessed an image or video of child pornography. In many cases, a defendant can argue that he did not knowingly possess an image or video because the file was accidentally downloaded or deleted.

• Accidental download. An individual may accidentally view or download child pornography while seeking out legal adult pornography (especially with P2P programs and general internet browsing). An independent expert can examine the file’s properties and obtain search terms that were used to show that the individual never intended to view or download the file.
• Cache and deleted files. When a user visits a website, all of the images are automatically downloaded as cache or temporary internet files without the user’s knowledge. Additionally, when a user deletes an image or video, the computer’s operating system automatically stores a thumbnail of the image as a thumbs.db file in unallocated space.  To prove possession of the cache file or deleted file in unallocated space, the government typically has to show that the individual was aware that the files still existed. An expert can help to show that an individual didn’t have such knowledge.
• Someone else downloaded the file. When more than one person has access to the computer, it is possible that someone else downloaded the images in question. An expert can help to determine the user account that was used, the date and time of the download, and other user activity to show that someone else could have been responsible for the downloads.
• No actual image or video. While the government may allege that a file was located on an electronic device, an independent expert can determine if this is in fact true. In one case, the government ended up dismissing charges against our client where our independent expert was able to show that there was no image on the device. Our expert pointed out that there were only “artifacts” of an image but no actual contraband.

Search warrants obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can taint the entire case. Most child pornography cases in federal court involve a search warrant which authorized the seizure of a defendant’s electronic devices. If the search warrant was unlawfully obtained, we can file a motion to suppress, arguing that the evidence was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many of these investigations begin with state or local police officers who are not as well trained as federal agents. This lack of training (or in some cases sloppiness) can cause force the government to dismiss the entire case if we file a motion to suppress.

If our client was interviewed by law enforcement and made incriminating statements, we can also file a motion to suppress these statements. Law enforcement will often fail to inform a person of his Miranda rights, thereby giving us the opportunity suppress the statements. In one recent case, the only evidence tying our client to child pornography found on a computer was his alleged confession which law enforcement had illegally obtained after raiding his home. When we argued that law enforcement had violated Miranda, the government dismissed the charges.

Yes, the U.S. government has taken the position that AI child porn and computer generated child porn is illegal under federal law. In 2024, the FBI stated in a press release that any child sex abuse materials created by computers (such as generative artificial intelligence) is illegal.

That being said, it is rare for an individual to be solely charged with possessing AI images depicting child pornography. Normally, a person is charged with both actual images and AI images. When AI images are charged, the Government typically alleges a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which addresses obscene visual representations of minors.

In a ruling last year, a federal judge in Wisconsin dismissed a count in a federal indictment against a defendant charged with possessing AI images. The judge explained that simply possessing obscene images, which do not involve a real child, is protected under the First Amendment. The judge, however, did not dismiss counts alleging production and distribution of the images (as such conduct is not protected). The case is now on appeal.

In the coming years, courts will grapple with any protections that apply in cases involving AI child pornography. But we expect that the Government will continue to prosecute these cases, firmly believing that such conduct is illegal.

The average sentence in non-production child pornography cases (which includes possession, receipt, and distribution charges) is 103 months in prison. But every case is different, and factors like the specific district, judge, and unique facts determine the outcome. Because federal sentencing in child pornography can be severe, it is critically important to retain a defense lawyer who is going to fight for you.

Even if you decide to enter a guilty plea instead of going to trial, you can often get a more favorable deal by initially fighting the government’s case, such as filing aggressive pretrial motions and hiring an independent expert.

We are often asked what a defendant can expect to be sentenced to if there is a conviction. While the sentencing laws provide for a wide range of possibilities (0 to 20 years for simple possession), federal judges use the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to arrive at a much narrower range and then fashion a particular sentence that they see fit. For a quick primer on the Guidelines in child pornography cases, you can visit our blog post here.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been quite harsh to individuals convicted of child pornography offenses. In 2019, for instance, the average sentence recommended by the Guidelines for individuals accused of simple possession, receipt, or distribution was 136 months (or about 11 years) in prison. Judges, however, routinely sentence below the Guidelines’ recommendations. As noted above, the average sentence handed down by judges in 2019 was 103 months (about 8.5 years). This number is lower for possession cases and also varies by the individual federal district.

The Eastern District of Virginia charges child pornography offenses at a much higher rate than most federal districts. In 2021, there were 40 child pornography cases in the Eastern District of Virginia and the average sentence was 106 months (the median sentence was 74 months). Comparatively, in the Northern District of Georgia, there were only 20 child pornography cases and the average sentence was 89 months (with a median sentence of 60 months).

At sentencing, a computer forensics expert can be incredibly valuable to challenge the government’s arguments about the number of images, the nature of images, where the images were located, and the extent and duration of alleged conduct. We also utilize leading and respected clinical psychologists to have our clients undergo psychosexual evaluations. By doing so, these experts can testify that our clients are of no danger. Using independent experts at sentencing can mean the difference between the minimum sentence and a much more severe sentence.

It is critical to hire a specialized child pornography defense attorney who understands computer forensics and digital evidence handling in federal court. Johnson/Citronberg has successfully represented clients charged with child pornography across the country. In cases where we are retained early enough, we have successfully prevented clients from being charged in the first place. In other cases, we have won dismissals, obtained reductions to avoid harsh mandatory minimums, and achieved some of the lowest sentences possible.

With offices in Alexandria, Virginia and Atlanta, Georgia, we represent clients across the country in federal court and in Virginia state courts. If you are looking for a compassionate, results-driven lawyer, give us a call.

We understand how stressful it can be when a decent person is falsely accused of child porn. Our lawyers have helped many people show that they were innocent of child pornography charges, which allowed them to return to their normal lives.

In one case, our client was a young high school teacher. His life was turned upside down when law enforcement executed a search warrant at his home and seized his computers. Because of his profession, law enforcement did everything it could to arrest and convict him. Through our own computer forensics expert, we were able to show that our client had no sexual interest in children and that the downloads in question were unintentional. Our client was able to return home and continue his career.

• FAQ about child pornography charges
• Defenses to child pornography charges
• What triggers a federal child pornography investigation?
• What is the process of a Federal child pornography investigation?
• How Digital Forensics Can Strengthen Your Federal Child Pornography Defense
• What counts as “possession” of child pornography?
• Navigating federal court child pornography charges
• How often are people falsely accused of child pornography crimes?