Commonwealth v. Diodoro
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION BY
KLEIN, J.:
¶ 1 The facts in this case are undisputed. Anthony Diodoro used his home computer to intentionally visit websites to find child pornography and, in fact, viewed 30 screens depicting pornographic images of children. But Diodoro only viewed the images. He did not print them, intentionally save them, or do anything other than just look at them on his computer screen. Although the pornographic images were automatically saved to an internet cache file on the computer’s hard drive, there was no evidence that Diodoro knew that the images were saved, and the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. Stuart RommCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- United States v. TuckerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- Commonwealth v. McClinticSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Commonwealth v. DicksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Krause v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.