expert in defense preparation). Thus, the examination of child pornography evidence by professionals employed by defendant as part of the attorney-client relationship cannot legally be considered dissemination of contraband subject to prosecution when it is sanctioned by a court rule or order of the court. Courts considering the question of an expert’s access to child pornography evidence, even in the context of the Adam Walsh Act, have acknowledged the need to permit defense expert access to child pornography evidence exchanged in discovery. See United States v. Shrake, 515 F.3d 743, 744-47 (7th Cir.2008) (recognizing that, even though it applies to prohibit copying of files, Adam Walsh Act does not restrict defendant’s expert from inspecting files); Brady, supra, 894 N.E.2d at 679 (<HOLDING>). A protective order, restricting access to the
holding that adam walsh act violates the eighth amendments prohibition against excessive bail and the fifth amendments guarantee of procedural due process holding that adam walsh act does not prohibit inspection by defense expert holding that adam walsh act violates the eighth amendments prohibition against excessive bail the fifth amendments guarantee of procedural due process and separation of powers holding that adam walsh act does not violate procedural due process require excessive bail or violate separation of powers holding that adam walsh act violates fifth amendments guarantee of procedural due process