<?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: Units of Prosecution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/topic-units-of-prosecution/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>According to Delaware law, &#8220;proper unit of prosecution&#8221; is per image</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/25/according-to-delaware-law-proper-unit-of-prosecution-is-per-image/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/25/according-to-delaware-law-proper-unit-of-prosecution-is-per-image/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 22:01:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Delaware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Units of Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2317</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fink v. Phelps</em>, No. 06-181-GMS, 2010 WL 2104233 (D. Del. May 25, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/25/according-to-delaware-law-proper-unit-of-prosecution-is-per-image/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2nd Circuit: Multiple images on one hard drive amount to &#8220;one unit of prosecution&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/04/24/2nd-circuit-multiple-images-on-one-hard-drive-amount-to-one-unit-of-prosecution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/04/24/2nd-circuit-multiple-images-on-one-hard-drive-amount-to-one-unit-of-prosecution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:09:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Units of Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1059</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In U.S. v. Polouizzi, No. 08-1830-er (2nd Cir. April 24, 2009), the Second Circuit considered, among other procedural matters, whether the possession of multiple images of child pornography (acquired from the same source on different days) on one external hard drive is properly prosecuted as “one unit” of possession or as several different counts.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/04/24/2nd-circuit-multiple-images-on-one-hard-drive-amount-to-one-unit-of-prosecution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WA Supreme Court holds that &#8220;one count per possession&#8221; is &#8220;proper unit of prosecution&#8221; in child porn cases</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/04/09/wa-supreme-court-holds-that-one-count-per-possession-is-proper-unit-of-prosecution-in-child-porn-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/04/09/wa-supreme-court-holds-that-one-count-per-possession-is-proper-unit-of-prosecution-in-child-porn-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:13:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Units of Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1063</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In <em>Washington v. Sutherby</em>, No. 80169-0 (Wash. April 9, 2009), the Washington Supreme Court—agreeing with a Court of Appeals decision—held that “the proper unit of prosecution” for the possession of child pornography is one. Sutherby was originally convicted in a jury trial on, among other things, 10 counts of the possession of child pornography. Investigators had found “several files containing pictures of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/04/09/wa-supreme-court-holds-that-one-count-per-possession-is-proper-unit-of-prosecution-in-child-porn-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

