7v Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beg to differ. If eesh gets a slick defense lawyer
> who puts the "victim" on trial, he could still
> beat the rap. But that kind of attorney would
> probably cost at least $10,000. A Court appointed
> attorney probably wouldn't risk pissing off the
> judge by really putting the wood to the victim.
> For example, if it could be shown that the victim
> posted the photos first, then eesh posted the
> photos, the jury might not care if the victim is
> mad about the reposting. It could still be a not
> guilty, not withstanding the law or eesh's
> statement. That kind of defense is not cheap.
The elements of the crime are:
1) A person must disseminate a videographic or still image of another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast.
2) The person must know, or have reason to know, he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate the image.
3) The person must have disseminated the image maliciously, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate the victim.
The problem with your theory is that the law, as written, makes no distinction as to the *source* of the photographs. See
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-386.2
While eesh's attorney *might* raise the point that the photos were initially posted by Megan herself, the CA will *immediately* object to this as not relevant.
I'd also bet any amount of money that the CA will ask the judge to instruct the jury that they are not allowed to consider the origin of the photos in their deliberations.