Apr 29, 2008

Defense's doctrine

During their first conversation, Kelly Farley said he was attracted to "younger girls," including his own 12-year-old and 10-year-old daughters. He said he was online looking for a child to have sex with, because having sex with his own girls was "too risky with wife," according to the formal federal complaint filed by Detective Joanne Southerland.

Repeatedly, during the online chats, Southerland asked Farley if he was just interested in talking about pedophilia, just interested in the fantasy, or if he wanted to engage in the explicitly described acts "for real." Farley said he had sex with children before and was very interested in having sex with "Steph" and her daughter, "Sydney."

Farely's attorney, Vionnette Reyes Johnson, argued that it was "legally impossible" for Farley to be guilty, since "there is not an actual child in the case."

The defense's doctrine of "legal impossibility" was used, successfully, in 1976, in a case where a man said he would sell heroin, but sold instead novocaine, which is commonly used by dentists. The federal court found it could not infer intent to sell heroin "because he in fact did something else," court documents show. In 2002, however, the federal court rejected the doctrine of legal impossibility in a case involving allegations relating to an undercover agent posing as a 13-year-old girl. Johnson asked the court to approve the doctrine, reversing the 2002 decision, but was unsuccessful.

Johnson also argued that Farley's sexually explicit conversations about pedophilia are protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech.

Read the full story @ the Clayton News Daily:
Father of 3 found guilty of attempted pedophilia, blames 'progression of porn.'