Medina Man Arrested on Child Pornography Charges

Richard J. Miezin, 47, of Medina, Ohio, was charged with receiving, distributing, and possessing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, said Steven M. Dettelbach, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, and Stephen D. Anthony, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Cleveland office.

Miezin was arrested this afternoon.

The indictment charges that from on or about April 27, 2010 through on or about February 25, 2011, Miezin knowingly distributed, by computer, numerous computer files that contained visual depictions of real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Miezin is further charged with knowingly and willfully making false material statements and representations to the Federal Bureau of Investigation during their investigation.

The indictment is the result of was a joint effort of the Medina County Sheriff’s Office and the Akron Office of the FBI’s Crimes Against Children Task Force. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Carol M. Skutnik.

Targeting child predators is a priority of this newly established task force with the Medina County Sheriff and FBI. This task force will utilize all available investigative, technical, and community resources to protect the children in our communities.

Over the last several years, the FBI, state and local law enforcement, and the public have developed an increased awareness of the prevalence of child pornography and sexual exploitation of children. More incidents of online child pornography and sexual exploitation are being identified for investigation than ever before. As the power and popularity of the Internet continues to expand, the number of child pornography and sexual exploitation cases opened will likely continue to grow, as will the resources needed to address this crime problem. The task forces located throughout the northern district of Ohio, composed of federal, state, and local law enforcement, are a key tool in this effort.

If convicted, the sentence in this case will be determined by the court after consideration of the federal sentencing guidelines, which depend upon a number of factors unique to each case, including the defendant’s prior criminal record, if any; the defendant’s role in the offense; and the unique characteristics of the violation. In all cases, the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum and, in most cases, it will be less than the maximum.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.