Defense attorneys for a former Forsyth County Sheriff’s sergeant convicted last week on federal child pornography charges plan to ask for a new trial.
Bill McKenney, one of two attorneys who represented Milton Scott Pruitt, said he plans to file the motion soon with U.S. District Judge William O’Kelley, who presided over the case.
“There will be numerous grounds of errors that we believe occurred during the trial, including not divulging the opinions or conclusions of the government expert, which is required,” McKenney said.
A jury found Pruitt, 41, of northeastern Forsyth guilty on one count each of knowingly receiving child pornography on his work and home computers.
Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 8 in U.S. District Court in Gainesville. Each of the two counts comes with a minimum sentence of five years and a maximum of 20 years in prison.
Pruitt was taken into federal custody following the verdict Wednesday. McKenney said he planned to file a motion Friday to ask O’Kelley to reconsider keeping Pruitt behind bars until his sentencing.
Pruitt also faces state charges.
In December, the former lawman pleaded not guilty in Forsyth County Superior Court to five counts of violation of oath by public officer, two counts of theft by taking and one count of computer theft.
Forsyth County District Attorney Penny Penn said Friday that motions in the case are scheduled for Aug. 12 and a trial could be scheduled soon thereafter.
“The federal case hasn’t had any effect on the state case,” Penn said. “We’ll still be proceeding because it is on different charges.”
She said Pruitt’s conviction in the federal trial could be used in determining his sentence if he is convicted in the state case.
Forsyth County Sheriff Ted Paxton said Pruitt “is not nor was he a representative of the deputies in the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office or law enforcement in general.”
“These particular situations are just an anomaly and they certainly do not paint a broad brush over everybody in this profession,” Paxton said.
McKenney contends that Pruitt’s conviction sets a “dangerous precedent” that merely viewing an image on a computer screen could result in a federal conviction.
He said he doesn’t think that was Congress’ intent with laws against child pornography.
“I think that what Congress intended was for pedophiles that actually not only viewed these pictures but then either save them for enjoyment later or share them with other pedophiles or attempt to keep them in files for later use,” he said.
“Anyone can make a mistake in getting into a site that also pops up ... It’s still in your computer. So if for any reason your computer is searched later, they will pick this up and conceivably you can be arrested and charged the same way that Sgt. Pruitt was.”
Pruitt was fired May 17, 2007, from the sheriff’s office amid accusations that he used his county-issued laptop computer to view images of child pornography kept in a sheriff’s investigator’s files.
Authorities later found such images, as well as questionable Web sites and Internet search keywords, on his home computer.
Pruitt was indicted in August 2008 by a federal grand jury. His trial began Monday and ended Wednesday. He did not testify in his defense.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Brent Gray noted in court Monday that when questioned about the images by Georgia Bureau of Investigation and sheriff’s investigators, Pruitt said he was “just curious.”
“We’re here today because the defendant was ‘just curious,’” Gray said. “The problem is he’s ‘just curious’ about child pornography.”
During the trial, the defense challenged the prosecution’s use of GBI Special Agent Bobby Stanley as an expert.
McKenney and fellow defense attorney Ann Fitz argued that they had not been told what Stanley’s opinion would be or his case summary.
They also maintained that they were not notified he would be testifying as an expert for the prosecution.
O’Kelley allowed Stanley to take the stand, but restricted his testimony to the evidence revealed in his investigation and did not allow him to give an opinion on what he found.
The defense presented witnesses after unsuccessfully asking O’Kelley for an acquittal on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
The charges include the allegation that the images “had been shipped and transported in interstate and foreign commerce by any means, including by computer.”
McKenney and Fitz argued that prosecutors presented no evidence that Pruitt transmitted child pornography across state lines.
McKenney said Friday that while the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that simply appearing on the Internet is enough to establish that images have crossed state lines, there are at least three to four other circuits that require more.
“Other circuits require that the person receiving the image either file it or download it as opposed to simply a pop-up or simply viewing the image,” McKenney said.
He added that there was no evidence that Pruitt downloaded any of the images, though many were found in the unallocated space on his home computer.
According to defense and prosecution witnesses, the computer user does not have access to the unallocated space, which stores images that have been deleted from the hard drive. Those images could come from pop-ups, viruses or hacking.
“The 11th circuit here says if it appears on your screen in any fashion, that’s receiving. That’s sufficient for interstate commerce,” he said.
“So those are some of the issues we’re going to raise and there will be a hearing with the judge and, depending on the judge’s rulings, then there will be an appeal to the 11th circuit court of appeals and then to the Supreme Court if we have to.”
E-mail Julie Arrington at juliearrington@forsythnews.com.
Bill McKenney, one of two attorneys who represented Milton Scott Pruitt, said he plans to file the motion soon with U.S. District Judge William O’Kelley, who presided over the case.
“There will be numerous grounds of errors that we believe occurred during the trial, including not divulging the opinions or conclusions of the government expert, which is required,” McKenney said.
A jury found Pruitt, 41, of northeastern Forsyth guilty on one count each of knowingly receiving child pornography on his work and home computers.
Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 8 in U.S. District Court in Gainesville. Each of the two counts comes with a minimum sentence of five years and a maximum of 20 years in prison.
Pruitt was taken into federal custody following the verdict Wednesday. McKenney said he planned to file a motion Friday to ask O’Kelley to reconsider keeping Pruitt behind bars until his sentencing.
Pruitt also faces state charges.
In December, the former lawman pleaded not guilty in Forsyth County Superior Court to five counts of violation of oath by public officer, two counts of theft by taking and one count of computer theft.
Forsyth County District Attorney Penny Penn said Friday that motions in the case are scheduled for Aug. 12 and a trial could be scheduled soon thereafter.
“The federal case hasn’t had any effect on the state case,” Penn said. “We’ll still be proceeding because it is on different charges.”
She said Pruitt’s conviction in the federal trial could be used in determining his sentence if he is convicted in the state case.
Forsyth County Sheriff Ted Paxton said Pruitt “is not nor was he a representative of the deputies in the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office or law enforcement in general.”
“These particular situations are just an anomaly and they certainly do not paint a broad brush over everybody in this profession,” Paxton said.
McKenney contends that Pruitt’s conviction sets a “dangerous precedent” that merely viewing an image on a computer screen could result in a federal conviction.
He said he doesn’t think that was Congress’ intent with laws against child pornography.
“I think that what Congress intended was for pedophiles that actually not only viewed these pictures but then either save them for enjoyment later or share them with other pedophiles or attempt to keep them in files for later use,” he said.
“Anyone can make a mistake in getting into a site that also pops up ... It’s still in your computer. So if for any reason your computer is searched later, they will pick this up and conceivably you can be arrested and charged the same way that Sgt. Pruitt was.”
Pruitt was fired May 17, 2007, from the sheriff’s office amid accusations that he used his county-issued laptop computer to view images of child pornography kept in a sheriff’s investigator’s files.
Authorities later found such images, as well as questionable Web sites and Internet search keywords, on his home computer.
Pruitt was indicted in August 2008 by a federal grand jury. His trial began Monday and ended Wednesday. He did not testify in his defense.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Brent Gray noted in court Monday that when questioned about the images by Georgia Bureau of Investigation and sheriff’s investigators, Pruitt said he was “just curious.”
“We’re here today because the defendant was ‘just curious,’” Gray said. “The problem is he’s ‘just curious’ about child pornography.”
During the trial, the defense challenged the prosecution’s use of GBI Special Agent Bobby Stanley as an expert.
McKenney and fellow defense attorney Ann Fitz argued that they had not been told what Stanley’s opinion would be or his case summary.
They also maintained that they were not notified he would be testifying as an expert for the prosecution.
O’Kelley allowed Stanley to take the stand, but restricted his testimony to the evidence revealed in his investigation and did not allow him to give an opinion on what he found.
The defense presented witnesses after unsuccessfully asking O’Kelley for an acquittal on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
The charges include the allegation that the images “had been shipped and transported in interstate and foreign commerce by any means, including by computer.”
McKenney and Fitz argued that prosecutors presented no evidence that Pruitt transmitted child pornography across state lines.
McKenney said Friday that while the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that simply appearing on the Internet is enough to establish that images have crossed state lines, there are at least three to four other circuits that require more.
“Other circuits require that the person receiving the image either file it or download it as opposed to simply a pop-up or simply viewing the image,” McKenney said.
He added that there was no evidence that Pruitt downloaded any of the images, though many were found in the unallocated space on his home computer.
According to defense and prosecution witnesses, the computer user does not have access to the unallocated space, which stores images that have been deleted from the hard drive. Those images could come from pop-ups, viruses or hacking.
“The 11th circuit here says if it appears on your screen in any fashion, that’s receiving. That’s sufficient for interstate commerce,” he said.
“So those are some of the issues we’re going to raise and there will be a hearing with the judge and, depending on the judge’s rulings, then there will be an appeal to the 11th circuit court of appeals and then to the Supreme Court if we have to.”
E-mail Julie Arrington at juliearrington@forsythnews.com.