Old Bridge Man Pleads Guilty to Producing and Possessing Child Pornography
Daniel Berwick, 39, admitted in federal court to coercing two minors to send him sexual images and videos, and to possessing over 1,000 images of child pornography.
By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 3:52 p.m. ET
TRENTON, N.J. – On August 20, 2026, an Old Bridge, New Jersey man admitted to producing and possessing images and recordings of child pornography, U.S. Attorney Robert Frazer announced. Daniel Berwick, 39, guilty on August 18, 2026 before U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch in Trenton federal court to a three-count Information charging him with two counts of production of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography.
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court: In August and September 2025, Berwick persuaded and enticed Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2 to create and send him photos and video recordings on the social media platform Snapchat that depicted the minors engaged in sexual activity. As part of his scheme, Berwick catfished his victims by presenting himself as a 17-year-old high school student and using the photos and video recordings of an adult content creator as if they were pictures of him. Eventually, Berwick even threatened to send compromising photos of Minor Victim-1 to her family and high school officials, if she did not meet his demands for money or sexual acts.
After searching Berwick’s electronic devices, law enforcement uncovered, among other things, at least 1,000 images of child pornography, including prepubescent minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, sexual abuse or exploitation of an infant or toddler, and images portraying sadistic or masochistic conduct. The production of child pornography charges related to Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2 each carries a mandatory minimum term of 15 years imprisonment and a maximum term of 30 years imprisonment, and a fine of up to $250,000. The possession of child pornography charge carries a maximum term of 20 years imprisonment, which is increased from a maximum of 10 years because at least one image associated with the offense includes a prepubescent minor, and a fine of up to $250,000.
Sentencing is scheduled for December 21, 2026. U.S. Attorney Frazer credited special agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Stefanie Roddy in Newark, with the investigation leading to the guilty pleas. He also thanked the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Offense, under the direction of Prosecutor Linda Estremera, and the Old Bridge Police Department, under the direction of Chief of Police Thomas J. Montagna, for their assistance in the investigation. This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) in the Justice Department’s Division, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit: https://www.justice.gov/psc. The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan S. Garelick of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Division in Trenton. Defense counsel: Robert C. Scrivo, Esq., Mandelbaum Barrett PC.
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.