One of the most unusual portions of the Adam Walsh Act has been the restrictions on the defendant's access to child pornography evidence. While I am against the restrictions for reasons I have previously discussed, it is cases like this one (assuming the prosecution's allegations are true) that show the rationale for limiting a defendant's access:
The feds confiscated more than 1.2 million images from Worman's computers, in addition to more than 11,000 videos showing Worman having sex with children over a nine-year period.
The children range in age from three months to 15 years. The charges, however, involve only 60 images, five with each of the 12 alleged victims.
Rotella said Worman should be entitled to see a limited number of the images or otherwise the discovery process could take years to complete.
She also said Ruslander and Worman had "flagrantly abused" three pre-trial sessions last month by viewing the same videos repeatedly, suggesting at one point that Worman was more interested in feeding his "sexual satisfaction" than in preparing a defense.
One of the oft-viewed videos involved Worman having oral sex with an adult.
It will be interesting to see how the judge rules in terms of providing a defendant reasonable access to the evidence under the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act.
HT: How Appealing