A former University graduate student will once again get the opportunity to defend himself against child pornography charges that he has faced for nearly three years, but the location of his new trial is still undecided.

Stephen A. Knox of State College filed a request Wednesday with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, asking for a retrial there and not in a district court.

In 1991, Knox was convicted by the Harrisburg District Court of knowingly possessing and receiving through the mail three pornographic videotapes that featured young girls. The decision was later upheld on appeal by the circuit court.

The 3rd Circuit is expected to decide later this month where the case will be tried next. The U.S. Supreme Court gave the circuit court power to make that decision after declining to make a final ruling, calling instead for further review.

In a brief filed Wednesday, Knox's attorney, Alan Silber, said the government intends to bring an entirely different case -- with new evidence -- against his client in the event of a district court retrial.

Silber called the government's latest move a cynical and politically motivated ploy to avoid further "political brouhaha".

"A remand to the District Court for a completely new trial will undermine the very purpose of the Supreme Court's Order," Silber said in the brief. "The Circuit Court of Appeals is a far more appropriate place than the District Court to establish precedent."

The Supreme Court's decision to remand the case came after U.S. Department of Justice Solicitor General Drew Days argued that Knox's case was upheld by the 3rd Circuit Court for the wrong reasons.

Days argued that the appellate court erred when it convicted Knox on the basis that the videos focused on the young girls' clothed midsections. Videotapes must also reveal the contours of the genitals if children are clothed, he said.

"That position has damaged us," Knox said, adding that he thinks the Justice Department "added more confusion" to prevent a Supreme Court ruling in his favor.

Silber said in the brief that the Justice Department is avoiding the issues originally raised before the courts as part of a strategy to quell a political fire storm that has resulted from its previous handling of Knox's case.

The U.S. Department of Justice refused to comment on the case.

Knox and Silber contend the tapes in question violate no federal statutes. Their reason: The girls featured in the videos are fully clothed, wearing outfits such as bikinis, shorts and leotards.

The U.S. Supreme Court had decided to hear the case to review whether the alleged close-up shots of the clothed girls violated U.S. codes regulating sexually explicit conduct. A federal law prohibits "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."

Knox said, "Our position has always been that there has to be nudity . . . to have exhibition of the genitals.

"The government wants to try to get around that language," he said. "It's a very vague interpretation of the statute."

Although Knox admits the videos are lascivious, he said that should not be an issue because there is no proven genital exhibition. But the tapes do contain some scenes in which girls' genital contours are discernible through their clothing, he said.