William Gammon: Prosecutor's Not Happy The Accused Child Porn User's Out On Bond

Categories: Courts, Crime
Even ICE agents were taken aback
William Gammon, the attorney who's pushed for aggressive homeowners' associations in court and in the legislature, is out on bond on charges of possessing a pornography stash described by an investigator as "one of the largest collections of extremely young children he had ever seen."

One person not happy about that: The prosecutor, Bob Stabe.

"I'm bothered because it's some of the least restrictive conditions ever put on someone charged with a sex offense," he tells Hair Balls. "He doesn't have very many restrictions on him."

The question seems to be: Is a guy who jerks off to child porn -- but doesn't molest kids -- not a threat to society?

Gammon was initially ruled a flight risk and a danger to the community by federal magistrate Frances Stacy, but his attorneys appealed to U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes.

They argued that Gammon had known about the investigation for months and not fled anywhere.

Instead of proving he was a flight risk, attorney John Floyd argued, "the government relied upon the volume of pornography seized, its inflammatory nature and the strength of the government's case to argue for the growing practice of denying bail in possession of child pornography cases."

Hughes apparently agreed.

Gammon was arrested after his IP address was found on the servers of a child-porn site. An investigation of his home last November found handwritten notes in a safe with web addresses for child-porn sites, 9,200 still shots and 101 videos of underage sexual scenes.

"During the search Gammon confirmed he purchased a membership with [the child-porn site called] 'Dream Zone' and believed it was for six months," Stacy wrote in her findings of fact denying bond. "He admitted using the website more than once and said he masturbated to these images and videos." (A description of the images is after the jump, DO NOT CLICK ON IT if you don't have a strong stomach.)

Gammon's attorneys argued that there was no evidence their client had molested any children.

"Defendant respectfully argues that allowing bond for defendant, absent any evidence of actual or potential child molestation, does not create, or continue any risk to minors or future potential harm to the community," they argued in court documents. "The government did not present any evidence that the defendant engaged in any sexual misconduct beyond the possession and viewing of child pornography. In fact, the government's witness testified that he was aware that defendant has children and had no reason to fear they were victims or would be victimized."

They also said there was a growing belief that automatically forcing child-porn defendants to wear electronic-monitoring devices was unconstitutional.

Prosecutors, in their arguments, emphasized the sordid nature of what was found. Again, DO NOT CLICK to the next page without thinking about it.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Now Trending

Houston Concert Tickets

From the Vault