Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Former Wharton Professor's Child Porn Sentence Affirmed

Article Placeholder Image
By Gabriella Khorasanee, JD on October 18, 2013 3:55 PM

Even the ivory towers of the Ivy League are not immune from perverts. In his second appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a former Wharton professor's sentence, for charges related to child pornography, was affirmed, reports the University's paper The Daily Pennsylvanian.

United States v. Ward -- Background

Former Wharton professor Lawrence Scott Ward was arrested at Dulles International Airport, on August 27, 2006, after a routine check revealed that he possessed child pornography. He was indicted, tried and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.

As a result of his arrest in Virginia, federal agents in Philadelphia searched his office on the campus of the Wharton Graduate School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. The agents found photos and videos of Ward engaging in sex acts with two Brazilian minors.

Email correspondence was found between Ward and the two minors, which revealed that Ward had paid for one of the minors' housing and family expenses, among other things. Even more disturbing, Ward had attempted to get a visa for one of the minors to visit him in the United States, and had lied on the visa application.

Ward was indicted and tried on the Pennsylvania offenses, and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment and a $100,000 fine. He appealed, and the Third Circuit remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to impose separate sentences for each of the counts.

United States v. Ward -- Review of Sentence

On remand, the District Court reviewed the record and sentenced him to the same twenty-five year prison term, and increased the fine from $100,000 to $250,000, based on an error the Third Circuit found in the first appeal. Ward appealed again raising seven arguments as to why his sentence should be vacated. The Third Circuit found that "[a]ll of Ward's arguments are unavailing," and affirmed the sentence.

Ward clearly lacked good judgment in life, as he did in accepting his sentence. He should have left the first sentence alone, and now in addition to still serving twenty-five years in prison, also has to fork over an extra $150,000. Can't say we feel bad though ...

Related Resources:

Find a Lawyer

More Options