XBIZ article - interview with juror from JM/Five Star obscenity case

[Quentin]

I've just posted an interview with a juror from the JM Productions/Five Star Video obscenity trial that I think people here might find interesting. The woman declined to be identified in the article, but I have verified that her claim is legitimate.

She has some very interesting things to say.

- Q.

[crockett]

Well at least it's nice to know that the jurors in some cases at least have a brain..


Regardless of whether the jury considered the DVDs in question to be legally obscene, the woman told XBIZ that the prevailing opinion among the jurors was that the entire case was a waste of government time and resources.

“It was a common sentiment that prosecuting obscenity crimes is a waste of time,” she said. “Overall, we were appalled that FBI resources were being used in this manner given the multitude of other more important tasks they could be undertaking.

“Also, they are prosecuting the distribution of material that is completely legal to watch in your own home. Even the jurors who found the movies horribly distasteful agreed that they didn't care if their neighbors were watching them. In order for the FBI to make a credible case for these prosecutions they need to prove definitively to us that they are in some way adversely affecting society at large.”

[Elli]

Sounds like they got at least one reasonable juror!

[Az A Bay Bay]

sOunds good i guess.....

[seeric]

and once again we see that the american outlook on freedom of speech is upheld by its citizens.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Elli

Sounds like they got at least one reasonable juror!

Absolutely - very reasonable, and very serious about her role as a juror.

[BoyAlley]

The jury should have nullified if they felt the law was ridiculous.

But it's nice to hear that your average citizen agrees with us about first amendment issues.

EXCELLENT work by xbiz by the way. Getting an interview with a juror from an obscenity case is pretty damn impressive.

So nice to read some real industry news for a change, instead of just retarded press releases like "Novelty company increases size of their dildo line by a half an inch!"

[crockett]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

and once again we see that the american outlook on freedom of speech is upheld by its citizens.

Well not really, because they did find one DVD obscene. However the juror noted had sales evidence of that type of DVD been shown to them. They likely wouldn't have found it obscene.

Seems the judge wouldn't allow that kind of evidence in the case. Seems like a good enough reason to me for a appeal.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

The jury should have nullified if they felt the law was ridiculous.

But it's nice to hear that your average citizen agrees with us about first amendment issues.

EXCELLENT work by xbiz by the way. Getting an interview with a juror from an obscenity case is pretty damn impressive.

So nice to read some real industry news for a change, instead of just retarded press releases like "Novelty company increases size of their dildo line by a half an inch!"

If you read the article you will see the jury has to determine if they broke the law, not by their opinion on the law it's self. It's not for the jury to decide if the law is a good one or a bad one.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by crockett

Well not really, because they did find one DVD obscene. However the juror noted had sales evidence of that type of DVD been shown to them. They likely wouldn't have found it obscene.

Seems the judge wouldn't allow that kind of evidence in the case. Seems like a good enough reason to me for a appeal.

I'm sorry, but I think Jeffery Douglas fucked up on that one. He gathered evidence of what was AVAILABLE, but didn't bother to gather evidence about what was actually BOUGHT. He should have subpoenaed records from local hotels and sex shops.

That's why the judge didn't let it in. She basically said he didn't do his job.

At least, that was my take on it.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by crockett

If you read the article you will see the jury has to determine if they broke the law, not by their opinion on the law it's self. It's not for the jury to decide if the law is a good one or a bad one.

I read the article, and I also know what the US Supreme Court has said in the past about jury nullification.

Anyone with any sort of libertarian principles would judge both the law and the facts.

Once you're in that jury room, the government has no control over what you decide.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by crockett

If you read the article you will see the jury has to determine if they broke the law, not by their opinion on the law it's self. It's not for the jury to decide if the law is a good one or a bad one.

you apparently have no idea what jury nullification means, until you do its probably best not to comment.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

you apparently have no idea what jury nullification means, until you do its probably best not to comment.

Here, let's educate the breeder on jury nullification:

Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a not guilty verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented. Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of that position on what is the law or how it should be applied. Juries are reluctant to render a verdict contrary to law, but a conflict may emerge between what judges and the public from whom juries are drawn hold the law to be. A succession of such verdicts may signal an unwillingness by the public to accept the law given them and may render it a "dead-letter" or bring about its repeal. The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict than officials who may be unduly influenced. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one's peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.

A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).[2]

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I'm sorry, but I think Jeffery Douglas fucked up on that one. He gathered evidence of what was AVAILABLE, but didn't bother to gather evidence about what was actually BOUGHT. He should have subpoenaed records from local hotels and sex shops.

That's why the judge didn't let it in. She basically said he didn't do his job.

At least, that was my take on it.

Don't jump the gun... she was expressing her take of the judge's ruling.

My understanding of the judge's rationale for excluding the evidence was somewhat less persuasive; apparently much of it was disallowed because it did not pertain to materials downloaded/purchased/otherwise obtained in 2006 - the same year the DVDs were purchased by the FBI.

My understanding it that evidentiary requirement was not known to the defense until they arrived at trial.... so they were a little hamstrung there.

I suspect that the human defendants in the case - against whom ALL charges were dropped - were actually pretty happy with the performance of counsel.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

you apparently have no idea what jury nullification means, until you do its probably best not to comment.

She didn't say the law was useless or didn't apply to the case. She said it was a waste of time and they were not happy the govt was using resources in this manner.

So keep your no comment crap to your self.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Don't jump the gun... she was expressing her take of the judge's ruling.

My understanding of the judge's rationale for excluding the evidence was somewhat less persuasive; apparently much of it was disallowed because it did not pertain to materials downloaded/purchased/otherwise obtained in 2006 - the same year the DVDs were purchased by the FBI.

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.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Here, let's educate the breeder on jury nullification:

You don't have to educate me.. I know what it means and they didn't do it for a reason. They aparentlly felt the law was good enough to find them guilty for one case of obcenity out of the three.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by crockett

She didn't say the law was useless or didn't apply to the case. She said it was a waste of time and they were not happy the govt was using resources in this manner.

So keep your no comment crap to your self.

Actually she did.

?Also, they are prosecuting the distribution of material that is completely legal to watch in your own home. Even the jurors who found the movies horribly distasteful agreed that they didn't care if their neighbors were watching them. In order for the FBI to make a credible case for these prosecutions they need to prove definitively to us that they are in some way adversely affecting society at large.?

[AmateurPornDollars]

Originally Posted by Quentin

I suspect that the human defendants in the case - against whom ALL charges were dropped - were actually pretty happy with the performance of counsel.

I see they will only get fines. Why the domain forfeiture?

[Quentin]

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.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by Quentin

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.

I'm not saying that Sirkin or Douglas aren't knowledgeable or good at what they do. Free Speech is their business, and I don't doubt they know it inside and out. I just think Douglas might have flubbed the dub on the availability issue.

Personally, as a juror, I would never even get to the point I would need to worry about it. I'd ask myself one simple question "Do most of the people that live in my community believe in Free Speech, and do most of them not want the government in their bedrooms." That, to me, is the community standard.

I think in most every town in the country, the answer to that question is yes. In fact, the juror interviewed by Xbiz even said as much.

I wonder what the government's take on all of this is. Are they pleased that they were able to get a conviction, or disheartened that 2 counts were dismissed?

I certainly know how they'll spin it, but I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the DOJ when they have meetings about future obscenity indictments.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by AmateurPornDollars

I see they will only get fines. Why the domain forfeiture?

My understanding is that going in to the trial, there was an agreement between the parties that the jury returned a guilty verdict, forfeiture of the domain would be part of the penalty.

BTW - I keep prefacing everything I say with the caveat of "my understanding is" (which I realize can be pretty annoying after a while) simply because some of this is material that was related to me in off-the-record fashion by various sources; there may be some 'holes' in my understanding/recollection, and it's always possible that some of the off-the-record information was not 100% accurate to begin with.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by Quentin

My understanding is that going in to the trial, there was an agreement between the parties that the jury returned a guilty verdict, forfeiture of the domain would be part of the penalty.

The DOJ just wants to be able to have something up for sale in Moniker's next adult domain auction.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I'm not saying that Sirkin or Douglas aren't knowledgeable or good at what they do. Free Speech is their business, and I don't doubt they know it inside and out. I just think Douglas might have flubbed the dub on the availability issue.

Personally, as a juror, I would never even get to the point I would need to worry about it. I'd ask myself one simple question "Do most of the people that live in my community believe in Free Speech, and do most of them not want the government in their bedrooms." That, to me, is the community standard.

I think in most every town in the country, the answer to that question is yes. In fact, the juror interviewed by Xbiz even said as much.

I wonder what the government's take on all of this is. Are they pleased that they were able to get a conviction, or disheartened that 2 counts were dismissed?

I certainly know how they'll spin it, but I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the DOJ when they have meetings about future obscenity indictments.

Good points, all around.

The government is certainly unhappy with the result of the trial. I don't know whether they intend to appeal - they probably won't say anything about that until the amount of the fines has been set by the court.

I get the sense that the defense may appeal, and whether or not they do will depend on the amount of the fines. An appeal would be costly, and if the fines are not substantially more than the cost of the appeal, my guess is that they will pay the fines and move on, satisfied that nobody is going to jail.

[AmateurPornDollars]

Originally Posted by Quentin

My understanding is that going in to the trial, there was an agreement between the parties that the jury returned a guilty verdict, forfeiture of the domain would be part of the penalty.

BTW - I keep prefacing everything I say with the caveat of "my understanding is" (which I realize can be pretty annoying after a while) simply because some of this is material that was related to me in off-the-record fashion by various sources; there may be some 'holes' in my understanding/recollection, and it's always possible that some of the off-the-record information was not 100% accurate to begin with.

Thanks for clearing that up, and thanks for keeping the community informed.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Elli

Sounds like they got at least one reasonable juror!

And in a trial that's all it takes.

[Snake Doctor]

That's a nice get

[Porno Dan]

Damn, if that is a really a jurror that is a quite a story.

[tony286]

kudos to xbiz for a good article.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Quentin

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.

what was the last case any of the names we always hear as the experts have won?I'm curious. The biggest hit to 2257 and none of the usual names were involved.

[Stephen]

That was a great interview, Q

[munki]

Great article xbiz...