<?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; Topic: Evidence Rules</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/topic-evidence-rules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:30:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: 18-month delay does not render child porn evidence stale</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/04/5th-circuit-18-month-delay-does-not-render-child-porn-evidence-stale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/04/5th-circuit-18-month-delay-does-not-render-child-porn-evidence-stale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 20:56:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Evidence Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Staleness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-50283-CR0.wpd.pdf"><em>United States v. David Allen</em></a>, No. 09-50283 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/04/5th-circuit-18-month-delay-does-not-render-child-porn-evidence-stale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>7th Circuit: Prior offenses of child porn production may be admissible in sex assault case under federal evidentiary rules; minors cannot &#8220;consent&#8221; to sexual contact</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/18/7th-circuit-prior-offenses-of-child-porn-production-may-be-admissible-in-sex-assault-case-under-federal-evidentiary-rules-minors-cannot-consent-to-sexual-contact/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/18/7th-circuit-prior-offenses-of-child-porn-production-may-be-admissible-in-sex-assault-case-under-federal-evidentiary-rules-minors-cannot-consent-to-sexual-contact/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:12:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 7th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Illinois]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Evidence Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Propensity Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Rogers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1768</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.communitydefense.org/cases/20091118.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Rogers</strong></em></a>, No. 08-1516, 2009 WL 3837337 (7th Cir. Nov. 18, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/18/7th-circuit-prior-offenses-of-child-porn-production-may-be-admissible-in-sex-assault-case-under-federal-evidentiary-rules-minors-cannot-consent-to-sexual-contact/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NH Supreme Court rules that evidence of child pornography discovered after defendant abandoned his apartment is admissible</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/17/nh-supreme-court-rules-that-evidence-of-child-pornography-discovered-after-defendant-abandoned-his-apartment-is-admissible/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/17/nh-supreme-court-rules-that-evidence-of-child-pornography-discovered-after-defendant-abandoned-his-apartment-is-admissible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:57:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New Hampshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Evidence Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1583</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/howe121.pdf"><em>New Hampshire v. Howe</em></a>, No. No. 2008-445 (N.H. Nov. 17, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/17/nh-supreme-court-rules-that-evidence-of-child-pornography-discovered-after-defendant-abandoned-his-apartment-is-admissible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: Trial court does not abuse discretion in allowing video excerpts in child porn cases</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/26/5th-circuit-trial-court-does-not-abuse-discretion-in-allowing-video-excerpts-in-child-porn-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/26/5th-circuit-trial-court-does-not-abuse-discretion-in-allowing-video-excerpts-in-child-porn-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:57:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Evidence Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: File Sharing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Interstate Commerce]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1563</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>U.S. v. Caldwell</em>, No. 08-50804, 2009 WL 3425074 (5th Cir., Oct. 26, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/26/5th-circuit-trial-court-does-not-abuse-discretion-in-allowing-video-excerpts-in-child-porn-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

