In State v. Brady, Ashtabula App. No. 2005-A-0085, 2007 Ohio 1779, the court analyzed the issue of whether the federal pornography statutes deprived a defendant of the right to expert assistance in a trial involving charges for pandering obscenity and sexually oriented material involving minors. In Brady, the Eleventh District affirmed the decision of the trial court which dismissed all counts brought against the defendant under R.C. 2907.321. The Eleventh District found that he was denied the assistance of an expert witness since the expert would be subject to federal prosecution for viewing or analyzing the State's evidence, which would, in turn, make it impossible for the defendant to receive a fair trial. The Supreme Court of Ohio, however, reversed the decision of the Eleventh District and found that the federal statutes provided for the ability of the defendant's expert to examine the State's evidence at the prosecutor's office or other government facility. State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375, 2008 Ohio 4493, 894 N.E.2d 671. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the lack of an exception for expert witnesses in the federal pornography statutes did not deprive a defendant of the assistance of an expert, nor did it deprive a defendant of the right to fair trial. Id.