Whether Ohio's strict liability for inadvertent child pornography dissemination violates due process, whether defendant's right to mount a defense was violated, whether Massiah and Doyle violations occurred

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Ohio’s imposition of strict liability for even inadvertent, accidental or unknowing dissemination of child pornography violates due process and conflicts with the decisions of this Court requiring scienter in obscenity laws especially in light of the modern computer age. 2. Whether a defendant’s fundamental constitutional right to mount a defense, as recently outlined in Holmes v. South Carolina, is violated whereby the State acknowledges that there was no evidentiary rule that precluded the admission of the evidence that another person may have committed the crime. 3. Whether this Court’s seminal holding in Massiah v. United States was violated whereas the Ohio court ruled that a law enforcement officer can interrogate a defendant after he has been indicted without the presence of counsel and subsequently use this statement in the prosecution’s case in chief. 4. Whether the Ohio court’s decision conflicts with and violates this Court’s landmark holding in Doyle v. Ohio wherein the prosecution first raised and violated the defendant’s right to remain silent.