II. CASES INTERPRETING THE ADAM WALSH ACT

U.S. v. Renshaw, 2007 WL 710239 (S.D.Ohio Mar 06, 2007) - Motion for discovery contends that application of the Act: 1) allows the government to bypass its obligation to authenticate evidence; and 2) that the legislation presumes that the images that are the subject of the prosecution(s) are indeed child pornography.

U.S. v. Burkhart, 2006 WL 2432919 (W.D.Pa. Aug 21, 2006) - evidentiary material constituting child pornography shall remain in the custody of the government per Section 504, and this Section shall apply to cases pending at the time of that this Act was signed into law.

U.S. v. Butts, 2006 WL 3613364 (D.Ariz. Dec 06, 2006) - District Court denied motion to compel discovery that claimed denial of due process and right to effective assistance of counsel, as the review processes of the computer harddrives, etc. in the government's possession were too burdensome and impractical. Court disagreed citing Section 504 of the Act; plus, no ex-post facto issue.

U.S. v. Knellinger, 471 F.Supp.2d 640 (E.D.Va. Jan 25, 2007) - Challenged the government's refusal to provide discovery copies to Defendant, citing separation of powers and limited opportunity to see/review discovery.

U.S. v. Johnson, 456 F.Supp.2d 1016 (N.D.Iowa Sep 27, 2006) - Challenged the government's failure to provide access/copies of discovery material to the defendant.

U.S. v. Madera, 474 F.Supp.2d 1257 (M.D.Fla. Jan 16, 2007) - prosecuted for failure to register, arguing that Congress had not impermissibly delegated its legislative duties in the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, but rather merely authorized the executive branch to give advice to courts on the question of retroactivity. Court held that the Act is retroactive as of the day it passed.

U.S. v. Manning, 2007 WL 624037 (W.D.Ark. Feb 23, 2007) - Prosecution for failure to register, arguing that the retroactive application of the Act is unconstitutional.

U.S. v. Markel, 2007 WL 1100416 (W.D.Ark. Apr 11, 2007) - Same as Manning.

U.S. v. O'Rourke, 470 F.Supp.2d 1049 (D.Ariz. Jan 17, 2007)

U.S. v. Smith, --- F.Supp.2d ---, 2007 WL 735001 (E.D.Mich. Mar 08, 2007) - convicted on state sexual assault charges, and later charge in federal court with failure to register as a sex offender prior to July 27, 2006 (date the Act was implemented). Defendant challenges ex post facto the Indictment, and Court dismissed agreeing with the Defendant that the allegation that the statute reads “travels” interstate, not “traveled” interstate.

MORE CASES INTERPRETING THE ADAM WALSH ACT

III. SEVEN TITLES Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006

(A. Title I: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act...)

< >