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

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.

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.”

Sounds like they got at least one reasonable juror!

sOunds good i guess.....

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

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

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.

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.

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

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. :winkwink:

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.

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.

Actually she did.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

And in a trial that's all it takes.

That's a nice get

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

kudos to xbiz for a good article.

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.

That was a great interview, Q :thumbsup

Great article xbiz...