<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; Court: 8th Circuit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/court-8th-circuit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:15:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Divided 8th Circuit panel adopts proximate cause requirement for child porn restitution awards</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2013/03/11/divided-8th-circuit-panel-adopts-proximate-cause-requirement-for-child-porn-restitution-awards/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2013/03/11/divided-8th-circuit-panel-adopts-proximate-cause-requirement-for-child-porn-restitution-awards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:40:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: In re Amy Unknown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Fast]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://howappealing.law.com/031113.html#049867">How Appealing reports</a> on the ruling in <a href="\http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/13/03/122752P.pdf">U.S. v. Fast</a> and observes . . . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2013/03/11/divided-8th-circuit-panel-adopts-proximate-cause-requirement-for-child-porn-restitution-awards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit: Coach’s secret videotaping of weigh in by nude minors is “sexual exploitation” not “mere nudity”</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/05/8th-circuit-coach%e2%80%99s-secret-videotaping-of-weigh-in-by-nude-minors-is-%e2%80%9csexual-exploitation%e2%80%9d-not-%e2%80%9cmere-nudity%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/05/8th-circuit-coach%e2%80%99s-secret-videotaping-of-weigh-in-by-nude-minors-is-%e2%80%9csexual-exploitation%e2%80%9d-not-%e2%80%9cmere-nudity%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Johnson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2558</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/04/102350P.pdf">U.S. v. Johnson</a></em>, No. 10-2350 (8th Cir. April 5, 2011) ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/05/8th-circuit-coach%e2%80%99s-secret-videotaping-of-weigh-in-by-nude-minors-is-%e2%80%9csexual-exploitation%e2%80%9d-not-%e2%80%9cmere-nudity%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit: A special condition of supervised released prohibiting possession of all materials containing nudity is stricken on overbreadth grounds</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/21/8th-circuit-a-special-condition-of-supervised-released-prohibiting-possession-of-all-materials-containing-nudity-is-stricken-on-overbreadth-grounds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/21/8th-circuit-a-special-condition-of-supervised-released-prohibiting-possession-of-all-materials-containing-nudity-is-stricken-on-overbreadth-grounds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Nebraska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Simons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/2010072101.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Simons</em></a>, No. 09-2142 (8th Cir. July 21, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/21/8th-circuit-a-special-condition-of-supervised-released-prohibiting-possession-of-all-materials-containing-nudity-is-stricken-on-overbreadth-grounds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit: Federal statute criminalizing production of child pornography does not exceed Congress&#8217;s constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/04/8th-circuit-federal-statute-criminalizing-production-of-child-pornography-does-not-exceed-congresss-constitutional-authority-under-the-commerce-clause-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/04/8th-circuit-federal-statute-criminalizing-production-of-child-pornography-does-not-exceed-congresss-constitutional-authority-under-the-commerce-clause-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Commerce Clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/06/092787U.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Lemke</em></a>, No. 09-2787, 2010 WL 2219063 (8th Cir. June 4, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/04/8th-circuit-federal-statute-criminalizing-production-of-child-pornography-does-not-exceed-congresss-constitutional-authority-under-the-commerce-clause-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit: &#8220;Travelled in interstate commerce&#8221; means &#8220;crossed state lines&#8221; in child porn prosecution and mistake of age defense was properly precluded</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/29/8th-circuit-travelled-in-interstate-commerce-means-crossed-state-lines-in-child-porn-prosecution-and-mistake-of-age-defense-properly-precluded/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/29/8th-circuit-travelled-in-interstate-commerce-means-crossed-state-lines-in-child-porn-prosecution-and-mistake-of-age-defense-properly-precluded/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Missouri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Interstate Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Mistake of Age Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v McCloud]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/12/091520P.pdf"><em>U.S. v. McCloud</em></a>, No. 09-1520, 2009 WL 5092941 (8th Cir. Dec. 29, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/29/8th-circuit-travelled-in-interstate-commerce-means-crossed-state-lines-in-child-porn-prosecution-and-mistake-of-age-defense-properly-precluded/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit: Intentional viewing of child porn is knowing possession and images alone may prove it is real child porn</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/22/8th-circuit-intentional-viewing-of-child-porn-is-knowing-possession-and-images-alone-may-prove-it-is-real-child-porn/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/22/8th-circuit-intentional-viewing-of-child-porn-is-knowing-possession-and-images-alone-may-prove-it-is-real-child-porn/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:49:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Missouri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Temporary Internet Files]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Kain]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1866</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/12/083396P.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Kain</em></a>, No. 08-3396, 2009 WL 4909534 (8th Cir. Dec. 22, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/22/8th-circuit-intentional-viewing-of-child-porn-is-knowing-possession-and-images-alone-may-prove-it-is-real-child-porn/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit holds that &#8220;knowledge of victim&#8217;s age&#8221; is not necessary to establish production of child porn</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/08/8th-circuit-holds-that-knowledge-of-victims-age-is-not-necessary-to-establish-production-of-child-porn/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/08/8th-circuit-holds-that-knowledge-of-victims-age-is-not-necessary-to-establish-production-of-child-porn/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1173</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<strong><a href="http://www.communitydefense.org/cases/20090831.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Pliego</em></a>, No. 08-3288 (8th Cir. Aug. 31, 2009)</strong>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/08/8th-circuit-holds-that-knowledge-of-victims-age-is-not-necessary-to-establish-production-of-child-porn/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit Authorities for Various SOB Ordinance Requirements</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/12/8th-circuit-authorities-for-various-sob-ordinance-requirements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/12/8th-circuit-authorities-for-various-sob-ordinance-requirements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:40:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Memos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ordinances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Memos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Ordinances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Amortization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Distance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Interior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): No-Touch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1046</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Research as of June 2009 Limitations on hours of operation Northshore Experience, Inc. v. City of Duluth, MN, 442 F.Supp.2d 713 (D.Minn. 2006)(Negative Treatment) Prohibition on nude performance City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991); SOB, Inc. v. County of Benton, 317 F. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/12/8th-circuit-authorities-for-various-sob-ordinance-requirements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit denies entrapment claim, upholds conviction for &#8220;enticing a minor&#8221; and attempted transfer of obscene material</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/11/8th-circuit-denies-entrapment-claim-upholds-conviction-for-enticing-a-minor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/11/8th-circuit-denies-entrapment-claim-upholds-conviction-for-enticing-a-minor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:03:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Arkansas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=967</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 8th Circuit affirmed Todd Wesley Myers' conviction for "knowingly attempting to transfer obscene material to a person under the age of sixteen, in violation of <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001470----000-.html">18 U.S.C. § 1470</a>" and for "for enticing a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity" in violation of <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002422----000-.html">18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)</a>. Myers had argued on appeal "that he was entrapped as a matter of law, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the district court erred in admitting evidence."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/11/8th-circuit-denies-entrapment-claim-upholds-conviction-for-enticing-a-minor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
