Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyAlley
From what I read of the events in court, some was dismissed due to year of production or acquisition, but the majority of it was dismissed because there was no showing of actual consumption, only of availability.
I know in some states, the obscenity laws EXPLICITLY state that showing of availability is not enough, and one must show actual consumption by the community. While that may not be the law in AZ, it's something I think council should have been prepared for anyway. 
As for the personal counts being dropped, from what I read, that seemed to have a lot more to due with the Government's incompetence, than it had to do with defense council. |
Fair enough - but the defense has to be on the ball enough to take advantage of the mistakes made by the prosecution.
You can dispute the expertise and knowledge of Louis Sirkin, Jeffrey Douglas, etc., if you wish - but my sense is that most attorneys would tell you these guys are pretty damn good at what they do.... with respect to Sirkin, in particular, I think it would near impossible to find a lawyer who thinks he is anything less than a brilliant attorney.
Obscenity statutes do generally contain specific provisions that mere availability isn't sufficient to demonstrate a community standard; it is my understanding that more than one item of evidence disallowed here went well beyond mere "availability" in the community.