If investigators arrive at your door or you learn that your computer, phone, or accounts have been searched, it can feel like your entire world has been turned upside down. The pressure to talk with law enforcement quickly can lead to mistakes that harm your case. I have spent years defending people against sex-based allegations, including child pornography charges, and I know how these cases unfold. As your Lancaster child pornography lawyer, I focus on protecting your rights from the very first contact with investigators. My role is to explain the process, break down the evidence against you, and make sure every decision we make is deliberate and informed.
Ohio has several statutes that prosecutors use in these cases. Ohio Revised Code § 2907.321 covers pandering obscenity involving a minor, R.C. § 2907.322 involves pandering sexually oriented material, and R.C. § 2907.323 addresses the illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material. These charges range from second-degree to fifth-degree felonies, with penalties that often include prison, large fines, and sex offender registration. Some cases also revolve around the prohibition of disseminating harmful matter to juveniles.
In Lancaster, Ohio, cases are usually presented to a grand jury and move forward in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas. The timeline can last months, with pretrial hearings, motion practice, and negotiation taking center stage before any trial date is set. My job is to keep you informed of deadlines, challenge how the search warrant was obtained, and question whether the evidence was lawfully seized.
Defending against child pornography charges in Lancaster is rarely about one single fact. Instead, it requires careful analysis of how the files were found, what the forensic data really shows, and whether prosecutors can prove intent.
Some programs download or cache files automatically without a person ever opening them. Thumbnail images or residual data on a device may not show that the files were knowingly possessed. If the device was shared with other people in the household or workplace, it is important to highlight that prosecutors cannot always prove who was responsible. I also review every statement made to investigators to ensure it was voluntary and in compliance with Miranda rights.
Working with a defense lawyer early often allows you to avoid pitfalls such as:
In my practice, I frequently bring in independent forensic experts to review digital evidence. These experts can challenge the state’s conclusions and help us present alternative explanations. I also file motions to suppress evidence if it was obtained improperly, negotiate for reduced charges when possible, and prepare to take cases to trial when intent and knowledge are disputed.
Sex-based charges carry consequences far beyond the courtroom. A conviction can restrict your travel, employment, and even housing. I understand how overwhelming this can feel, and part of my work is guiding both you and your family through these collateral issues. I provide steady communication while safeguarding the confidentiality that your case demands.
While no lawyer can promise a specific result, I can promise that your defense will be thorough, strategic, and focused on protecting your rights at every stage.
If you are facing a child pornography investigation or formal charges in Lancaster, you do not have to go through it alone. I am prepared to review your case, explain your legal options, and build a defense designed to protect your future.
Contact Andrew H. Stevenson Attorney at Law today to schedule a confidential consultation. Taking action early can help avoid missteps, preserve important rights, and give you a clearer path forward during one of the most difficult times of your life.
Stepfather was accused of Rape and GSI by stepdaughter shortly after wife/mother filed for divorce. Despite the timing of the allegations, the Stepfather was indicted on 6 counts of Rape and 6 counts of GSI alleging sexual abuse 2 years prior. At trial, Andrew elicited over 150 “I don’t know” responses from the alleged victim during cross-examination. The phrase “I don’t know” was the ringing mantra of Andrew’s closing argument. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on all charges after only 30 minutes of deliberation.
