A 24-year-old Waldoboro man pleaded guilty Sept. 30 in Lincoln County Superior Court to five counts of possession of sexually explicit material of minors under 12 years old. James R. Brann was sentenced to four years in prison with all but six months suspended and six years probation. He will also be required to register as a sex offender for 10 years.
Police found over 1000 images and movies that depicted pornography involving children from “infants to just pre-pubescent kids,” Assistant District Attorney Andrew Wright told the court.
The sentence reflects a plea bargain in which five additional counts of possession of child pornography were dropped. Brann’s attorney, Andrews Campbell, agreed with the sentence.
“The only issue is mental inadequacy,” Campbell told the court. Brann underwent two separate evaluations, both of which showed he “has a very low I.Q.” but is competent to stand trial, Campbell said.
Police first began investigating Brann in 2009, Wright said. Using a government monitoring system, authorities noticed that a significant amount of what was believed to be child pornography was being downloaded from an IP address in Waldoboro.
When police went to the residence, they spoke with Brann’s parents, who told police they did not own a computer, but that their son was living with them at the time and had a laptop, Wright said.
Brann consented to a search, and police found more than 1000 images and movies, explicitly labeled and meticulously organized, Wright said.
As part of his six-year probation, Brann will not be allowed to use a computer or possess any pornography. He must also undergo a sex offender evaluation and complete sex offender treatment.
He has already served about four months towards his six-month prison term, Campbell said.
Following the sentencing, Brann’s father, Ron Brann, said he was glad it was over.
“I’m sick to my stomach,” Brann said. “I’ll be glad when he gets out.”
“He’s a young kid,” Campbell said. “We hope he’ll be treated well in the penal system.”
Campbell said that Brann’s case is not as clear-cut as it seems.
“There are first amendment issues involved here,” he said. “In today’s world, we’ve criminalized a lot of things. Just looking at something is right on the edge of what’s considered criminal – the important thing to remember is that there’s no actual victim.”