Frisco man accused in child pornography case claims email was hacked
A Frisco man accused of possessing child pornography on his computer has not yet entered a plea. Kenneth Scott Casey, 59, faces one charge of possession of sexually exploitative material, a class-four felony.
His defense attorney, Sommer Spector, filed a motion to try Casey’s felony charge and two misdemeanor cases concurrently. Otherwise, Spector would seek to admit information from the other two cases as evidence.
“I have to do that to show the jury the big picture on all three of these stories,” Spector said on Thursday.
Deputy district attorney John Franks objected to the motion, arguing that there was no evidence that the three cases were tied.
“There is nothing that gives the defense the ability to raise this,” he said.
According to Spector, the credibility of the witness in all three cases may be questioned due to compromising statements. She said the first misdemeanor case stemmed from June 18, where a woman who had resided with Casey for the past three months claimed he twisted her wrist.
Spector noted that statements about the location of the incident were inconsistent, but a permanent restraining order was issued. She said the woman returned all of Casey’s computer equipment to him, except for the computer itself, which remained in her possession.
She noted that Casey claims the woman hacked his email and put new passwords on it.
Later, on June 20, the woman entered the Frisco Police Department with a flash drive, Casey’s computer tower and a print-off. According to Spector, she presented a printed copy of an email she said Casey had sent her, thereby violating a restraining order and opening a second misdemeanor case.
“All she shows is a printed copy of the emails,” Spector said. “We all know paper copies are easily manipulated.”
She also noted the messages were lacking an IP address indicating from where they had been sent. Spector said the police did not check Casey’s email account for records of the message.
QUESTIONING THE SOURCE
As in previous hearings, Spector questioned the origin of the pornographic material on the flash drive the woman submitted to police, noting that the woman told officers she had transferred it from the computer to the drive herself. She added that a second flash drive containing similar material was submitted to the police department six days after the hard drives were stored as evidence.
“It absolutely will be contested at trial … whether my client downloaded pornography to the computer,” Spector said. “Our defense is she is essentially fabricating evidence against our client.”
Spector did not yet have an argument addressing the “creation date” of the pornographic images, which dated back as early as 2002, according to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security agent who conducted a forensic exam of Casey’s computer.
Fifth Judicial District Judge Mark Thompson expressed some concerns in combining the cases, notably that a jury might be swayed in ruling on all three cases by the shocking and explicit nature of the images.
“The same jury that would be determining those cases would be viewing images of a sexually explicit nature,” Thompson said. “I don’t believe it’s an irrational concern.”
Casey gave a verbal confirmation of his agreement with Spector, noting he had about a week to consider the joinder.
While Spector argued that the defense could request a joinder, citing Colorado Supreme Court case People v. Rollins, Franks argued that it was not an accurate interpretation of the evidence. He also noted there had been no motion to submit information from the two misdemeanor cases as evidence.
“They want to make this about (her) because they sense vulnerability there,” he said. “The idea that this is a mandatory joinder is preposterous.”
He argued that not joining the three cases would not affect Casey’s rights as a defendant. With little time to finish the discussion, the parties will reconvene in court the morning of Dec. 7 to address the motion.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.