by Alexandra Quillici
In the case against Quin Martin, each side gave closing statements on the morning of August 24. The People argued that it is unreasonable to assume that Mr. Martin could possibly own a computer for five years and not know the amounts of child pornography on it, despite the defense claim that it should be attributed to his father.
The defense said the People did not prove who downloaded the porn and who accessed it for pleasure. Martin’s father’s room was full of adult pornography, sex toys, and more that led the defense to believe the father had a serious addiction – and that he used his son’s computer to continue to satisfy it. They also pointed out how the IP address to the computer was in his father’s name.
In the final rebuttal, the People argued that it was reasonable for Martin to use his dad’s IP address to access such things. He also noted that the computer software had just been updated and it was not readily accessible to the father. That meant for the father to be using his son’s computer for hundreds of files of child pornography would be unrealistic, because passwords, software, and location of laptop were not all accessible to him.
The jury deliberated for several hours and reached a verdict of guilty on all charges of possession of child pornography. Quin Martin will report back for sentencing on October 6.
Jury Trial for Man Held on Possession of Child Pornography Begins
By Novpreet Shoker
The jury trial for defendant Quin Martin opened this Tuesday, in Department 13, with the defendant facing charges of possession of obscene matter that depicts a person under 18 years of age personally engaging in sexual conduct, as well as possession of drug paraphernalia.
The afternoon began with the prosecution calling Deputy Sheriff Dirk Leonard to the stand to testify on the development of the case.
Before the prosecution began its direct examination, Judge Paul K. Richardson explained to the jury that a stipulation was agreed to by both sides of counsel, in which it was accepted that on December 10 of 2015 several electronics, such as laptops and hard drives, were found located next to Martin while he was sleeping. Even further, it was agreed that over 600 images of persons, ranging in age from 4 to 18 years old, committing sexual acts were found.
Then, Deputy Leonard began his testimony by recalling that during December of 2015, he was helping with other officers’ heavy caseloads, and was given this case by another officer.
Deputy Leonard explained how he and four other officers proceeded to Martin’s address, after investigating and finding child pornography in that location, with a search warrant. He also mentioned that Martin, and his father who was there at that time, were compliant.
The prosecution then asked Dep. Leonard to sketch the layout of the residence for the jury to better understand the situation.
Once that was done, Dep. Leonard was given a set of ten photographs, which were taken the day of the search at Martin’s residence.
Deputy Leonard proceeded to explain each photograph, commenting on the rooms within the residence, as well as several methamphetamine pipes that were found and various electronics lying around. He also explained that the residence was very messy, in general, with random items scattered about, such as propane tanks, empty vodka bottles, large bags of cat food, and garbage.
Martin’s defense attorney, Deputy Public Defender Dave Muller, began his cross-examination by asking Deputy Leonard to clarify the timeline of the case. Dep. Leonard explained that the case was handed to him on December 2. He then drove by to check Martin’s residence on the 3rd, retrieved a search warrant on the 9th, and executed that warrant on the 10th.
Mr. Muller asked Deputy Leonard if he had investigated Martin’s father for prior convictions, to which Dep. Leonard said he did.
At this point, both sides of counsel had to approach Judge Richardson regarding a disagreement, which later, outside of the jury’s presence, turned out to be whether or not to discuss Martin’s father’s prior convictions – so that the defense could build their argument that Martin’s father was the one who downloaded the child pornography.
Judge Richardson ultimately allowed some testimony about Martin’s father. Martin’s father is also a future witness on the People’s list.
After a small afternoon break, Mr. Muller returned to asking Dep. Leonard about the room that belonged to Martin’s father.
Deputy Leonard explained that the officers did search Martin’s father’s room, and found another laptop. The computer contained an abundant amount of pornography, but none of that was illegal to possess.
Deputy Leonard went on to describe the items found in that room. The items included meth pipes, glass scales which were presumably for distributing drugs, marijuana, vibrators and other sex toys such as a blowup doll with interchangeable parts, and both used and unused condoms.
Mr. Muller asked Dep. Leonard if there was anything else found, such as child pornography. Deputy Leonard answered that he did not find any child pornography.
Muller then asked him if the items found in the room were strange in some sense, and Dep.Leonard agreed that “there was a large concentration of pornography in that room, yes.”
Judge Richardson then excused the witness.
The jury trial will reconvene with the People calling a second witness, an investigator from the high-tech department with Yolo County.