expressed in the Act, warrants further discussion. We first note that the Act is not authoritative for state criminal proceedings. State ex rel. Tuller v. Crawford, 211 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Mo.Ct.App.2007) (noting that 18 U.S.C.A. § 3509(m) is a procedural provision solely applicable to proceedings in the federal court). Moreover, when the question has arisen in state courts as to whether the defense counsel, when possessing child pornography in connection with preparing a defense, could be prosecuted for violation of the Act, the courts have held that the Act did not permit such prosecution. State v. Allen, No. E2007-01018-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 348555 at 6-7, 2009 Tenn.Crim.App. LEXIS 114 at 17-18 (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb. 12, 2009) ; State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375, 894 N.E.2d 671, 679 (2008) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 2389, 173
holding that a defendant not only has a right to be examined by an expert but also has the right to have an expert appointed to assist him in his defense holding hood had ample opportunity to advance his defense theory before the jury in other ways holding that unpleaded affirmative defense was properly considered by the district court where plaintiff had notice of the defense and an opportunity to respond holding that the act allowed for ample opportunity for inspection by a defense expert holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify