Adams County Man Indicted Federally For Receipt And Possession Of Child Pornography

HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that an Adams County man was indicted by a federal grand jury in Harrisburg on January 20, 2016 for receipt and possession of child pornography.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, the grand jury alleges that Earl Greg Walker, age 53, received and possessed child pornography at his home in Adams County in 2011-2012.  The indictment was unsealed today following Walker’s arrest on January 29, 2016.  Walker is due to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab today for his initial appearance.

This case was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations and the Pennsylvania State Police and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Daryl F. Bloom.  

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys' Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit  www.usdoj.gov/psc For more information about internet safety education, please visit  www.usdoj.gov/psc and click on the tab "resources."

Indictments are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.  A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The maximum penalty under federal law is 30 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

# # #