The law protects children against sexual exploitation. In the case, the defendant is accused of possessing a computer hard drive, which contained visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and a webcam. According to the sexual exploitation of children’s act, the accused is guilty of transporting visual depiction a sexual misconduct against children. The accused had the duty to verify that the material transported was safe for use and free of any sexual exploitation. However, failure to observe this measure makes the defendant an accomplice to children sexual exploitation.

Furthermore, the defendant claimed that the evidence used against him was insufficient to confirm him as guilty. The defendant states that the goods were part of a foreign interstate commerce. The hard drives, as well as the webcam were probably made from Korea or China. However, he depended on his experience and assumed that they originated from Korea or China. thus, free of any sexual videos. It is unlawful to transport videos of sexual exploitation on children. The government requires that individuals trading in foreign computer hardware must be keen to avoid the sale of hardware with consisting of videos that sexually exploit children. The defendant is guilty as he failed to do his job professionally assuming that the place of origin of the hard drive and webcam were safe.

On the other, the defendant’s trial was delayed, which is against the sixth amendment. This amendment requires that an accused must face immediate trial when accused of criminal activities. Delayed trial is a violation of an accused sixth amendment’s right (Jordan 123). Nevertheless, violation of the defendant does not make him less guilty or free from the crime committed. The court was provided with adequate evidence to prove that the defendant was guilty. It is rightful for the court to convict the defendant to avoid similar carelessness in future.

In the case of Acevado, the defendant was sentenced following a panel of adjudicators’ trial of aiding, and producing and assisting in the creation of a visual portrayal of a minor taking part in explicit sexual behavior with materials shipped, mailed or transported in foreign commerce or expressway. Defendant appealed, affirming that the proof that the Government had with regard to the crimes law element – namely that the equipment were part of interstate or foreign commerce – depended on uncertain barred hearsay, which sullied his right to challenge in the Sixth Amendment. Acevedo disputed that the testimony provided by the Governments witness concerning the source of the webcam and hard drive constituted barred hearsay as it depended on statements enclosed in the tags stuck to the same. The First Court of Appeals declared Defendants sentence, sticking that the tribunal court did not evidently state error in owning up the disputed testimony, since the eyewitness could have depended on his individual expert understanding slightly than the tags in shaping an judgment regarding the objects source.

As an inception matter, Acevedo challenge that the appraisal is acceptable since he voiced a Confrontation Clause case during his Rule motion. Conversely, the appropriate typical of evaluation is plain fault given that Acevedo botched to contemporaneously oppose to the depositions in question plus he admit as much in his succinct. It is noted that Acevedo does not plea the refutation of his Rule motion. Acevedo confronts his guilty verdict instead. As a result, plain error appraisal is appropriate. To institute plain error, Acevedo is required to show “plain” “error” that “affect” substantial rights. If Acevedo is able to assure all the three essentials, the prudence court, in its discretion, can spot a penalty error. This analysis is significantly related to the standard followed in risk-free fault analysis, in addition to the added crinkle that the activist, not the Government, endures the load of conviction with regard to prejudice.

Works Cited

Jordan , David. Free Law Supplement 4: Statutory and Administrative Law Glossary for U.S. Intelligence Law. New York: David Alan Jordan, 2000. Print.