GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Obscenity Trial in Arkansas Klan Country

MrMaxwell · 09-08-2010, 07:58 PM

It's no wonder they were acquitted
Look at how insane the prosecution (and the judge) was throughout everything

During the first four minutes of Long's opening argument, the defense team objected and moved for a mistrial three times, all in the presence of the jury. Long gravely announced, "These defendants brought us this 'artwork.' When they leave, they won't take it with them. They will leave it with us, only taking the money with them. The filth we'll keep." The defense immediately objected and moved for a mistrial, which Judge Neal denied. Long went on, observing that the jury heard a lot about Las Vegas and he wondered if Forrest City would become the "Porn Capital of East Arkansas." Again: Objection; motion for mistrial; motion denied.

Long then claimed that the prosecution did not need to prove community standards, (

) because "the law tells you what they are. ... Do they argue to you that this material is accepted as standard for Arkansas?" Once more: Objection; motion for mistrial; motion denied. Long then said that Sirkin was right, that no one would invite a friend or another couple over to watch this stuff. He said that proves the material is not accepted. He said that mortgage payments and utility payments and taxes and salaries are not a defense to obscenity and he invited the jury to look for any language so stating in the instructions. He said that the First Amendment just does not protect the obscene, and that Arkansas has the power to keep it out of commerce. He said that society cannot tolerate "anything goes," and that Sirkin's arguments would lead to the open sale of tapes depicting dogs killing dogs. An objection to the last comment was overruled, and the jury filed out to deliberate.

But Sirkin would not take Long's last statement lying down. He quickly went to work online and located this year's decision in United States v. Stevens, overturning a federal statute banning videos of animal cruelty, including depictions of dog fights. Judge Neal finally said that he didn't have to read the case because he'd heard about it, that Long had been wrong to so argue, but that he didn't think it important enough to call back the jury and tell them so.

09-08-2010, 07:58 PM
MrMaxwell Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10,057	It's no wonder they were acquitted Look at how insane the prosecution (and the judge) was throughout everything During the first four minutes of Long's opening argument, the defense team objected and moved for a mistrial three times, all in the presence of the jury. Long gravely announced, "These defendants brought us this 'artwork.' When they leave, they won't take it with them. They will leave it with us, only taking the money with them. The filth we'll keep." The defense immediately objected and moved for a mistrial, which Judge Neal denied. Long went on, observing that the jury heard a lot about Las Vegas and he wondered if Forrest City would become the "Porn Capital of East Arkansas." Again: Objection; motion for mistrial; motion denied. Long then claimed that the prosecution did not need to prove community standards, ( ) because "the law tells you what they are. ... Do they argue to you that this material is accepted as standard for Arkansas?" Once more: Objection; motion for mistrial; motion denied. Long then said that Sirkin was right, that no one would invite a friend or another couple over to watch this stuff. He said that proves the material is not accepted. He said that mortgage payments and utility payments and taxes and salaries are not a defense to obscenity and he invited the jury to look for any language so stating in the instructions. He said that the First Amendment just does not protect the obscene, and that Arkansas has the power to keep it out of commerce. He said that society cannot tolerate "anything goes," and that Sirkin's arguments would lead to the open sale of tapes depicting dogs killing dogs. An objection to the last comment was overruled, and the jury filed out to deliberate. But Sirkin would not take Long's last statement lying down. He quickly went to work online and located this year's decision in United States v. Stevens, overturning a federal statute banning videos of animal cruelty, including depictions of dog fights. Judge Neal finally said that he didn't have to read the case because he'd heard about it, that Long had been wrong to so argue, but that he didn't think it important enough to call back the jury and tell them so. Last edited by MrMaxwell; 09-08-2010 at 08:06 PM..