Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsWednesday, June 25, 2008 11:54 AM CDT
Comments Comments (23) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
State's attorney to fight court's reversal of child porn conviction
By Greg Cima
gcima@pantagraph.com
Advertisement

BLOOMINGTON -- Prosecutors will try to fight an appellate court’s reversal of a Gridley man’s child pornography conviction, the county state’s attorney said Tuesday. | Read prosecution's new Shoemaker petition (PDF)

McLean County State’s Attorney Bill Yoder said a petition will be filed Friday with the Illinois Supreme Court in hopes the high court will revisit the standard of review for child pornography cases. The filing is connected with the case against Jeffrey L. Shoemaker, 53, who was convicted in April 2007 of five counts of creating child pornography and later sentenced to concurrent four-year sentences.

Appellate court justices in Springfield ruled May 20 there was nothing inherently lewd about the photos taken by Shoemaker and he didn’t direct the actions of five nude, underage boys attending a birthday party. But in the ruling, the justices did fault Shoemaker’s judgment in creating the images.

Jeffrey L. Shoemaker


At the time of his arrest, Shoemaker was the manager of the store at the Children’s Discovery Museum in Normal.

He had film from the birthday party developed at Wal-Mart. Employees there alerted police, who arrested him when he picked up the photos in June 2006.

Scott Mulford, spokesman for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office, said attorneys with his office reviewed Yoder’s office’s petition, which had been prepared by the state’s attorneys’ appellate prosecutor’s office in Springfield. If the Illinois Supreme Court grants the petition, the attorney general’s office would handle the appeal, he said.

The state alleges in the filing that the 4th District Appellate Court acted improperly in its review of the case and interpretation of the photographs taken by Shoemaker.

“On appeal, the 4th District failed to credit trial court’s careful findings and analysis and reversed defendant’s convictions for child pornography, finding that five photographs were not child pornography but rather examples of nudity without lewdness,” the petition says. “In reaching this decision, the appellate court applied improper factors and substituted its judgment for that of the trier of fact.”

Yoder did not return a call seeking further comment on the case.

Shoemaker told police he didn’t intend to develop the film, and he thought he had thrown away the film used in photographing the boys at the party, authorities previously have said. He later testified he didn’t think the photos were lewd, but admitted they were inappropriate.

Defense attorney Steve Skelton said the prosecutors are essentially asking the Illinois Supreme Court to change its own rulings, and appellate courts are usually hesitant to change precedent. Skelton cited a 1999 case, People v. Lamborn, which the 4th District Appellate Court justices also cited in their decision to review whether the photographs were lewd.

If the Illinois Supreme Court grants the prosecution petition, Skelton said he would be one of the attorneys representing Shoemaker. If the court does not grant it, he expects Shoemaker would be a free man in September, provided he is not released on bond before then.

Shoemaker remains incarcerated, and Skelton said he has filed a motion for the appellate court to set bond. The court has not set a hearing on that motion, he said.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 23 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

speak&spell wrote on Jun 26, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Thank you to Mr. Yoder for helping the public understand the media that has been surrounding this subject. Clearly, these are not bathtub pictures! Even if the boys were running around naked, they were supposed to have an adult responsible for their supervision. I am ashamed to say I live in a community where so many people would defend this guy! How would you feel if your 8 year old was photagraphed nude without your consent at a birthday party? Were there pictures of cake, presents and balloons on this roll? Would the stance of our public be the same if this were 8 year old girls? "

harlandcraig wrote on Jun 25, 2008 4:29 PM:

" Read the last couple of pages of the appeal that describes the context of the photos. It's my opinion that some of these photos were taken while the boys were posing in front of Mr. Shoemaker. I always assumed they were just random snapshots after bathtime (still very wrong but maybe an innocent mistake.) But now I have a better understand the context of which the photographs were taken. Thank you Pantagraph for attaching the PDF file of the appeal. "

Rational Humanist wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:39 PM:

" Any reasonable adult who had "questionable" (in quotes because almost ANYTHING can be called porn these days) pictures would NEVER, EVER risk getting them developed by someone he or she has never met. Wal-Mart? No Way. Lewd, porn, obscene - all are nice, highly emotionally words, all very handy for rousing the rabble and all very much subjective. This makes them very popular with the local press and with local prosecutors. Sell papers, Make cheap political points. The real reason that the prosecutors want to press on is that this is just the sort of higher court finding that makes them have to work harder for what they feel should be easy political pickings. How can you slop on your paint with broad brushes when there is someone demanding that you keep between the lines? "

TwentyTwo wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:06 PM:

" I guess this board is one sided, as the Pantagraph keeps blocking replys about the truth... "

everyonehasanopinion wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:37 PM:

" Being a friend of one of the families involved in this case; I can say that these children were affected by this mans actions and none of the parents involved supported this man in any way. There is no reason that this man should have been taking nude pictures of these children. His doing so clearly shows that he enjoyed what he saw. Who knows what could have happened had he not been caught and convicted. Personally I think the laws surrounding what is considered lewd aren't strict enough. Any nude pictures of children should be considered child porn. Past a certain age (2) parents shouldn't even be taking nude pictures of their children. It will be a sad day if this conviction is over turned. My thoughts are with the children and families affected by this mans sick idea of fun for 8 year old boys. "

Probly_Not wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:26 PM:

" This man ADMITTED that the pictures he took himself were inappropriate. He knew that what he was doing was wrong, yet he did it anyways, and further more developed the pictures, supposedly "accidentally". They may not have been sexually explicit, but in today's day and age with all of the perverts out there, there is NO excuse for a grown man to be photographing a group of naked 8 year old boys. I don't think his life should be ruined for his poor choice of judgement here, but he should be penalized and watched carefully... This could be a red flag on this man that is warning us that he is capable of much more. BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY! This is nothing like a parent or grandparent photographing their babies/ toddlers in the bathtub. "

Grandma of Two wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:51 AM:

" Okay, so now I have read the new charge. In the middle of getting ready for bed, the boys were squirrling around. I can see them all getting butt naked to put on their PJ's. Maybe not a normal routine, but 5-6 8 year olds running around on a sugar high, it could be possible. This was not child pornography - it was bad judgement. The events took approximately 5-7 minutes so it looks like he got the boys back on track. "

Grandma of Two wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:43 AM:

" Okay, so what would the sentence have been if he had been charged properly - being a moran and taking stupid pictures. I really didn't believe these pictures were lewd from the beginning - neither did the appellate court - so maybe the SA should have gone for more reasonable charges instead of just calling him a sex offender. "

mama45 wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:14 AM:

" Are you freaking kidding me people!! Why should this guy be let off the hook. My goodness. Some of you are saying that it can be like taking pictures of our newborns or grandchildren or what have you. This was a guy taking NUDE pictures of 8 year old children that didn't belong to him. First of all if I was the mother of any of these children I would want to know why my child was running around nude in the first place. And why in the world is this pervert taking pictures of this and not telling these children to get some clothes on.
And for those of you who are going to wonder if I have children of my own.........yes I have 4 and 5 year old daughters and I myself would NEVER take nude pictures of them and no one else better be either!!!!! This is sickening!!! I can't believe anyone would want to look the other way. Something is seriously wrong here!!!!
*NOTE*
This is my sisters account and not mine so this is the opinion of Michelle not mama45. "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Pseudo Intellectual: you are assuming that the boys were naked of their own accord. I don't believe for a minute that they just decided, on their own, to play with each other naked. Even if they were, the last thing the pervert should have done was to pick up a camera and take pictures - I guess he figured he stumbled into Christmas morning, huh? No way were they running around completely naked because they CHOSE to. I can't believe the number of predators we have in this town. Just look at all these people think this guy did nothing wrong in taking NAKED pictures of other people's kids. And it's not like they were babies getting a bath in the sink. This were 8 year old boys. Shameful. "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:26 AM:

" Grandma of Two: Ask any 8 year old if they think it's completely natural to run around BUCK NAKED at their friends house while their friend's father takes pictures. I asked my 9 year old and he confirmed what I already knew. And if this so-called "father" was any kind of a responsible parent he would have directed the kids to at least put on their pajamas, rather than pick up a camera. There is no logical explanation for his actions. Any person who actually uses their common sense knows that it is not okay to take NAKED pictures of 8 year old boys. It's highly doubtful that they would have just started playing with each other naked, on their own accord. And, if there were any other parents that were present while this pervert snapped pictures of their kids, they should be charged as accessories, or at least with neglecting to protect their child. "

Advocate wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:21 AM:

" I couldn't believe this man was found guilty for taking pictures of nude children. Many grandmas could be found guilty of this same charge, the children are just younger. Since when were nude pictures of the human body considered lewd and/or pornographic? Is this another unwritten precept of McLean County conservativism? "

xkcd wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:21 PM:

" Sorry, I forgot it's not coming back to McLean county but going to the supreme court, so if my previous comment was "approved" ignore the part about the 12 jurors. :-/ "

xkcd wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:19 PM:

" Grandma of two: the parents were appalled and supportive of the prosecution. Marsh: posing of the children is not in the statute, only the lewd portion, however posing goes to motive, which is one aspect of the case the prosecution had to present.

In my opinion, the appellate court reviewed that this was tried at a bench trial, and therefore only one person (the judge) had to determine whether he felt the pictures were lewd (supposedly with guidance from case law, but he's still human). Yoder probably thinks that everyone in the SA's office thought they were lewd, the judge thought they were lewd, so if this guy tries for a jury trial, 12 jurors (in this county, mind you) will also find them to be lewd. (hate to put a pedophile on the street during an election year...) "

Marsh wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:55 PM:

" MISSterious, if I recall there were problems with the wording of the charges. If you charge pornography for having kids pose in lewd ways while you take their picture and then you only prove that you took lewd pictures but did not have them pose for them, then it was charged wrong and they might be found not guilty. It's not the judge's or the appeal court's job to correct the way the prosecutors decide to charge someone. "

pseudo-intellectual wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:55 PM:

" Did any of the boys ever come forward and complain about pictures being taken of them? Isn't it strange that if these kids were shy about being naked, why were they running around that way in the first place? I never attended such a "party" (in my youth or at any other time). Did the accused undress them, or suggest it in any way? Now, that would have been indictable. Otherwise, I just wish this story would go away. "

Grandma of Two wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:50 PM:

" After Pelo, Yoder must be thinking he's god. Now, if you remember the Supreme Court decision: these were not pictures where the kids were posed. They happened to be running around at a birthday party sans clothes. I can almost bet that the parents were in the audience in support of this guy. This is another waste of money. Anybody who had what could be called "inherently lewd" pictures wouldn't have dropped them off at Walgreens. They could be looked at the way we take pictures of our newborns for their first bath. "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Actually, my son is 9. No, he wasn't shy about his body when he was younger. In fact, up until he was 4 or 5 I had to chase after his naked butt running around the house. However, at around age 6 or 7, he did start to get shy about his body and didn't like to change his clothes in front of me or any body. My brothers were the same way at that age, and so are the children of my closest friends. Don't get me wrong, kids will run around in their underwear at all ages, but that is not the case here. It would be one thing if the kids were all wrestling in their underwear, but the boys in these pictures were buck naked. There is nothing natural about that. "

muttonhead31 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:53 PM:

" booker thats way to much practical and logical thinking for this forum. Some peolpe are only concerned with a rush to judgment and being able to read they're own stooooopid comments. "

bookerc1 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:23 PM:

" MISSterious, do you have 8 year old children? Because in my experience, kids at that age are NOT shy about their bodies. My friends & I were just talking at a ball game about how our boys still want to run around in their underwear, don't want to put on clothes afer a bath, etc. At a pool party last year, the boys thought nothing of stripping off their suits all in one room, with moms present, to get dressed. One mom has to constantly get on her son (age 11) to put on shorts before he goes outside to climb. Seems like they get more self-conscious when puberty hits, but wouldn't surprise me that 8 year olds were comfortable.

Totally not defending the guy, and I would be pretty hacked off if I found out that someone was taking pictures of my kids naked, but really, you can't say that kids that age are modest. I haven't seen the pictures and can't vouch for whether they were lewd or not. "

muttonhead31 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:01 PM:

" the word lewd would be my first clue,but hey that's just me. My prayers go out to the camara's families though. "

michelle24 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Thank you, MISSterious. I don't need to post, you said it for me. "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Why was the conviction thrown out in the first place? Is is suddenly acceptable for a grown man to take naked pictures of 8 year old children who aren't even his - who are at an age where they are shy about their bodies and reluctant to change their clothes in front of their parents, let alone their friend's parents? "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy