Has this Recent Supreme Court case effected any prosecutions in Texas, and if so how?

Also, it seems to me that if the defense in a child pornography prosecution is that the images in question are "virtual child pornography" and therefore protected under the Free Speech case, the jury should be allowed to make the determination whether the images are of actual children or not, and the jury should be able to rely on the images themselves, without additional evidence, in making that determination. Anyone agree or disagree?

Many of the stock child pornography images have already been identified as real children. Expert investigators (many in federal law enforcement) can rely on prior investigations that have identified the children as real.

Assuming these databases came up empty, do you think the images are competent evidence (without additional expert testimony) to uphold a jury finding that the images contain real children, albeit unidentified.

You need an expert to get the images into evidence, anyway. That same expert should be able to offer an opinion as to how such images are obtained and whether they are real or not. In addition, a pediatrician can testify as the to age of the child.

At least two federal cases have addressed defense challenges that images submitted as evidence in do not show "actual children" Both cases hold that the defense argument that the images could have been computer generated is "speculative" and that government's evidence was sufficient to uphold the jury's finding of guilt.

see: US v. Nolan, 818 F.2d 1015 (1st Cir. 1987)
US v. Vig, 167 F.3d 443 (8th Cir. 1999)

Due to the Ashcroft decision and some other incidents over the interim, there will be a push to "tighten up" some of our kiddie porn laws next session.

Does anyone have any particularly egregious cases in which someone did not get prosecuted to the extent that they should have been due to a glitch in our penal code, be it guilt/innocence or punishment?

If so, please share with me by email: edmonds@tdcaa.com.