Franklin County Man Federally Charged With Production Of Child Pornography Using An Infant
HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a Waynesboro man who was previously charged by Indictment filed on March 2, 2016 for the offenses of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor was charged with additional child pornography offenses yesterday.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Evan Matthew Lawbaugh, age 32, is alleged to have sexually assaulted an infant boy and recorded and distributed the video depicting such assault. He was charged with this offense in an indictment dated March 2, 2016 (Count 1). The new charges add two additional counts of sexually assaulting a four year old girl and recording the assault (Counts 2 and 3). The new indictment also charges Lawbaugh with distributing images depicting the sexual abuse of a child (Count 4) and possession of images depicting the sexual abuse of minors (Count 5) for distributing the images in Count 1 and possessing thousands of images and hundreds of videos of suspected or previously identified child pornography.
This case was investigated by the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Pennsylvania State Police and the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Daryl Bloom.
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 for this offense is 50 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $250,000 fine. Count I carries a mandatory term of imprisonment of 25 years’ imprisonment. 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.
# # #