Ex-Dallas officer, wife guilty of obscenity
FW couple plans to appeal jury verdict in adult video sales case
02:01 AM CDT on Thursday, October 23, 2003
By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News
Tamara Ragsdale shrieked as the guilty verdict on federal obscenity charges instantly altered the lives of her and her husband, former Dallas police Officer Garry Ragsdale.
What would become of their marriage, she asked aloud. Who would take care of their three young children now that she and her husband had been convicted on two counts of mailing obscene material and one count of conspiracy to mail obscene material?
"God, oh God! What are we going to do?" Ms. Ragsdale screamed to her husband.
The Fort Worth couple embraced and cried as U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater explained the ramifications of a jury's guilty verdict against them Wednesday
The jury of eight men and four women affirmed what prosecutors had argued during the trial: Videotapes the couple sold online depicting simulated rape, among other sex acts, are not protected free speech under the First Amendment. Rather, they offend contemporary community standards ? the legal benchmark for defining obscenity ? and are subject to criminal penalty.
Mr. Ragsdale, 34, and Ms. Ragsdale, 32, each could face up to 20 years in federal prison and a $750,000 fine. Judge Fitzwater scheduled sentencing for Jan. 23. Until then, he allowed the Ragsdales to remain free on bail.
"It's sad that [U.S. Attorney General] John Ashhahahahaha is diverting resources away from really serious crimes and focusing them on morality," F. Clinton Broden, Mr. Ragsdale's attorney, said after the trial. "This is political persecution."
Mr. Broden vowed to appeal the verdict. If granted, an appeal may take up to 18 months to complete, he said.
The couple ran a business called G Rags Inc. and operated a Web site called the Rape Video Store from April to July 1998. The couple made more than $60,000 on video sales from the site, according to bank records.
Mr. Ragsdale, who joined the Dallas Police Department in 1990, was arrested July 9, 1998, after vice officers bought videos from the Web site. He was fired from the department a short time later. State obscenity charges were soon dropped. The case remained dormant until 2002, when the Justice Department asked federal authorities to resume an investigation.
Three-part test
The case revolved around the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for obscenity, which is based on a three-part test ? whether the material appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
"This case does set some sort of precedent, the extent of which we do not yet know," said Daniel Weiss, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based organization that promotes traditional family values. "But this puts pornographers on notice."
Under U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who served during President Bill Clinton's tenure, the U.S. Department of Justice rarely prosecuted pornography and obscenity cases, Mr. Weiss said.
Mr. Ashhahahahaha, however, is pursuing the cases because pornographers have become so aggressive, wantonly filling children's e-mail inboxes with pornographic material and showing no regard in their advertising for adults who object to pornography, Mr. Weiss said.
"What will be interesting is how law enforcement goes after cases involving material less hard-core," he said.
Dallas-based U.S. Attorney Jane Boyle said in a statement: "This case clearly demonstrates that a jury drawn from our community can make a determination that materials containing offensive adult material violate our community standards. The citizens on the jury clearly rejected the Ragsdales' contention that the materials they sold did not violate community standards."
Mr. Broden argued that it is practically impossible for a 12-member jury, in a federal jurisdiction as large and diverse as North Texas, to define what community standards are in an obscenity trial.
"They weren't basing their decision on community standards," he said. "The jurors apparently ruled on their own personal tastes."
Relatives attempted to console the Ragsdales as they walked the halls of Dallas' Earle Cabell Federal Building, sometimes crying and hugging, sometimes talking quietly, and all the while questioning their fate.
'It's not fair!'
"I don't understand! It's not fair!" Ms. Ragsdale said to her husband, placing her hands on his forehead.
He placed his forehead on hers, then walked away, pacing in a circle as he unfastened his tie and unbuttoned his shirt.
"I can't provide for my family. What's going to happen to us?" he said.
Mr. Broden said he did not know whether the court would allow the Ragsdales to work.
The Ragsdales declined to comment as they left the building, instead piling into an SUV and driving away.
FW couple plans to appeal jury verdict in adult video sales case
02:01 AM CDT on Thursday, October 23, 2003
By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News
Tamara Ragsdale shrieked as the guilty verdict on federal obscenity charges instantly altered the lives of her and her husband, former Dallas police Officer Garry Ragsdale.
What would become of their marriage, she asked aloud. Who would take care of their three young children now that she and her husband had been convicted on two counts of mailing obscene material and one count of conspiracy to mail obscene material?
"God, oh God! What are we going to do?" Ms. Ragsdale screamed to her husband.
The Fort Worth couple embraced and cried as U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater explained the ramifications of a jury's guilty verdict against them Wednesday
The jury of eight men and four women affirmed what prosecutors had argued during the trial: Videotapes the couple sold online depicting simulated rape, among other sex acts, are not protected free speech under the First Amendment. Rather, they offend contemporary community standards ? the legal benchmark for defining obscenity ? and are subject to criminal penalty.
Mr. Ragsdale, 34, and Ms. Ragsdale, 32, each could face up to 20 years in federal prison and a $750,000 fine. Judge Fitzwater scheduled sentencing for Jan. 23. Until then, he allowed the Ragsdales to remain free on bail.
"It's sad that [U.S. Attorney General] John Ashhahahahaha is diverting resources away from really serious crimes and focusing them on morality," F. Clinton Broden, Mr. Ragsdale's attorney, said after the trial. "This is political persecution."
Mr. Broden vowed to appeal the verdict. If granted, an appeal may take up to 18 months to complete, he said.
The couple ran a business called G Rags Inc. and operated a Web site called the Rape Video Store from April to July 1998. The couple made more than $60,000 on video sales from the site, according to bank records.
Mr. Ragsdale, who joined the Dallas Police Department in 1990, was arrested July 9, 1998, after vice officers bought videos from the Web site. He was fired from the department a short time later. State obscenity charges were soon dropped. The case remained dormant until 2002, when the Justice Department asked federal authorities to resume an investigation.
Three-part test
The case revolved around the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for obscenity, which is based on a three-part test ? whether the material appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
"This case does set some sort of precedent, the extent of which we do not yet know," said Daniel Weiss, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based organization that promotes traditional family values. "But this puts pornographers on notice."
Under U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who served during President Bill Clinton's tenure, the U.S. Department of Justice rarely prosecuted pornography and obscenity cases, Mr. Weiss said.
Mr. Ashhahahahaha, however, is pursuing the cases because pornographers have become so aggressive, wantonly filling children's e-mail inboxes with pornographic material and showing no regard in their advertising for adults who object to pornography, Mr. Weiss said.
"What will be interesting is how law enforcement goes after cases involving material less hard-core," he said.
Dallas-based U.S. Attorney Jane Boyle said in a statement: "This case clearly demonstrates that a jury drawn from our community can make a determination that materials containing offensive adult material violate our community standards. The citizens on the jury clearly rejected the Ragsdales' contention that the materials they sold did not violate community standards."
Mr. Broden argued that it is practically impossible for a 12-member jury, in a federal jurisdiction as large and diverse as North Texas, to define what community standards are in an obscenity trial.
"They weren't basing their decision on community standards," he said. "The jurors apparently ruled on their own personal tastes."
Relatives attempted to console the Ragsdales as they walked the halls of Dallas' Earle Cabell Federal Building, sometimes crying and hugging, sometimes talking quietly, and all the while questioning their fate.
'It's not fair!'
"I don't understand! It's not fair!" Ms. Ragsdale said to her husband, placing her hands on his forehead.
He placed his forehead on hers, then walked away, pacing in a circle as he unfastened his tie and unbuttoned his shirt.
"I can't provide for my family. What's going to happen to us?" he said.
Mr. Broden said he did not know whether the court would allow the Ragsdales to work.
The Ragsdales declined to comment as they left the building, instead piling into an SUV and driving away.
Comment