The defendant in United States v. Schweizer, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132065 (D. Nev. 2011) challenged the sentencing requirement that forbade him from living within 200 yards of a school, park, or other location children may congregate after being convicted of possession of child pornography. The defendant and his wife have lived near a middle school for nearly twenty years, and this requirement would require them to sell their home.
The court modified the requirement to exempt their current home. As justification, the court noted that he is 62 (and will be 65 by the time of release from prison), has documented health problems, and will face a lifetime term of supervised release. They also acknowledged that the real estate market in Nevada is bad, and the requirement would have great economic consequences for the defendant and his wife.
RELATED CASE: In a California CP possession case, the defendant was required to "inform all persons with whom he/she has a significant relationship about his/her criminal history." An appellate court found this to be vague and struck it from the probation requirements. People v. Ebersold, 2011 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8761 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
RELATED CASE: In a California CP possession case, the defendant was required to "inform all persons with whom he/she has a significant relationship about his/her criminal history." An appellate court found this to be vague and struck it from the probation requirements. People v. Ebersold, 2011 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8761 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
0 comments:
Post a Comment