Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 05-26-2020
Case Style:
United States of America v. Matthew Barlow
Case Number: 5:20-cr-00252-PAG
Judge: Patricia A. Gaughan
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Summit County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Call 918-582-6422 for help finding a great criminal defense lawyer in Akron, Ohio.
Description:
MoreLaw ReceptionistsVOIP Phone and Virtual Receptionist Services
Call 918-582-6422 Today
Detroit, MI - The United States of America charged Matthew Barlow with child pornography.
a federal grand jury indicted three men in the Northern District this week on child pornography charges. These are separate cases and are not related.
Matthew Barlow, age 38, of Akron was indicted on two counts of transportation of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, one count of sexual exploitation of children, and one count of possession of child pornography. According to the criminal complaint filed in this case, from February 2016 through April 2020, Barlow used an email account to receive and possess approximately 1,483 images of child pornography, which contained visual depictions of real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Furthermore, the affidavit states that some of the images may have depicted a minor that had previously lived with Barlow. Barlow is a registered sex offender in the State of Ohio.
The case was investigated by SA Benjamin Shaw, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Cleveland Office. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Carol M. Skutnik.
Andrew Allen Meek, age 48, of Leetonia was charged on a two-count indictment with receipt and distribution of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and possession of child pornography. According to the complaint filed in the matter, on February 25, 2020, federal agents executed a search warrant at the defendant’s address in Leetonia and seized various digital items. During an investigation of these items, numerous depictions of child pornography were discovered.
The case was investigated by the Youngstown office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, and the Mahoning Valley Violent Crimes Task Force. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael A. Sullivan.
David M. Schade, age 33, of Cleveland was charged on a three-count indictment with sexual exploitation of a minor, receiving visual depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and possession of child pornography.
According to the criminal complaint filed in the matter, from March through April 2020, the defendant used the social media platform Snapchat to coerce a minor into engaging in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing and transmitting child pornography. During a federal search warrant of the defendant’s residence, investigators discovered numerous devices containing images of child pornography.
The case was investigated by Investigator David Frattare of the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force and the Department of Homeland Investigations, Cleveland Office. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Carol M. Skutnik.
18:2252(a)(1) Transportation of Child Pornography
(1)
18:2251(a) Sexual Exploitation of Children
(2)
18:2252(a)(1) Transportation of Child Pornography
(3)
18:2252A(a)(5)(B) Possession of Child Pornography
(4)
Outcome: An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. Each defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If convicted, the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after a review of factors unique to this case, including the defendant’s prior criminal records, if any, the defendant’s role in the offense and the characteristics of the violation. In all cases, the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum and in most cases, it will be less than the maximum.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: