Every now and again, even an experienced criminal defense attorney of over a quarter century has to scratch his head and rub whatever scant hairs remain thereupon.

The case comes to us from Attleboro. A 41-year-old mother (hereinafter, the “Defendant”), is crying “foul” as she faces her day of judgment. You see, the Defendant insists that she was duped into committing what turned out to be a crime.

The alleged trickster, from Iowa, had duped the Defendant, claiming to be a professional photographer. He apparently took advantage of the fact that the Defendant wanted to be a model.

Well, actually not just her. Her and her daughter.

Her ten year old daughter.

Hey…who knew that it was illegal to pose your 10-year-old daughter nude over a webcam to get work?

Well, the Defendant now knows. She was charged with the felony of indecent assault and battery. However, the kind-hearted prosecutor allowed her to plead guilty to simple misdemeanor assault and battery. The charge of posing her daughter in the nude was dropped.

Apparently, the Defendant was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in jail with three months to serve.

The phony photographer is said to be facing child exploitation charges.

Attorney Sam’s Take On Child Pornography And Related Crimes

When this Boston Criminal Lawyer looks at this story and tries to figure out which part is the most unbelievable…frankly, it is hard to do.

“Well, Sam, isn’t it the shocking fact that the Defendant apparently had her 10-year-old-daughter stripped naked on a webcam?”

Well, that is pretty unusual, I suppose, although I have heard allegations of equally odd and sordid behavior. However, I am just as amazed with how the local district attorney went about prosecuting the case.

Primarily…where are the child pornography charges? I mean, if she had taken pictures and had them in her possession, then it would be possession of child pornography. Of course, simply doing the web broadcasting should be enough for a nice charge, most likely federal, of creating and disseminating child pornography. Perhaps the reason lies in what the young girl was doing while naked.

Maybe that is where the charges that were brought were what they were.

Apparently, the Commonwealth alleged that there was some offensive and illegal touching going on around the girl’s private parts. Incidentally, regardless of what those parts were, or what was inserted, any penetration would likely have resulted in actual rape charges.

In any event, there are likely other little intrusions into the Defendant’s life taking place as a result of this episode. First of all, I do not know who will be taking care of the daughter while the Defendant is in custody, but I do believe that the Department of Children and Families will likely become involved if they have not been already. Despite my oft-stated issues with DCF, this would appear to be a case that probably requires their intervention.

After all, if the Defendant did not realize the seriousness of what she did here…well, that question of judgment might be the most frightening part of this story.

“Sam, will the Defendant now have to register as a sex offender?”

No, which was probably one of the incentives of taking this plea deal. Because she pleaded guilty to simple everyday assault and battery, she will not have to register. If it had been the indecent assault and battery, or child pornography charges, she would.

Many people still do not understand the seriousness of this type of case. While we do not know what the broadcast actually consisted of, or what type of modeling engagements the Defendant had been looking for, naked pictures of kids is something that is taken very seriously by prosecutors.

Even pictures that might have been taken as “cute” in criminal justice yesteryear are anything but cute now.

They are illegal.

For the original story upon which this blog is based, please go to

Contact Information