Obscenity Trial in Arkansas Klan Country - Acquittal on DP/Choking Content - GoFuckYourself.com

Joe Obenberger · 09-08-2010, 04:51 PM

http://business.avn.com/articles/Not...al-411387.html

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2010/0...ans-thank-you/

http://www.katv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13108334

baddog · 09-08-2010, 04:58 PM

Good deal.

Elliot Caine · 09-08-2010, 06:02 PM

I love that at the end of the article in the first link there is an ad for Grudgefuck 7, yes I clicked.

MrMaxwell · 09-08-2010, 07:41 PM

Interesting reading, so far..

The trial judge was Olly Neal, a black jurist just approaching 70 years of age, tall, skinny as a rail, with white, wooly hair. He served ten years on the Arkansas Appellate Court and returned to Forrest City recently to fill a vacancy caused when a St. Francis County judge got in trouble and left the bench. Though he projected a warm, charming, cordial, and often humorous kindliness during the trial, together with a careful, calm, and considerate demeanor to all in the courtroom, he essentially gave the prosecutors nearly everything they asked for, fair or foul, and gave the defense next to nothing that it sought. Maybe it's significant that he was Arkansas' first African-American elected prosecutor in 1991, but he's not known in this locale for being a conservative.

A dramatic and pivotal moment of trial occurred when Lou Sirkin cross-examined the civilian State Police employee who created that summary. After establishing that the charged works each bore a copyright notice, he asked the State Police employee whether he had "respected" the copyright in making his (derivative) summary. Time passed. Silence. The uncomfortable employee started to increasingly display his discomfort as the ramifications of the question sunk in. He started to explain what he was considering in formulating his answer. More silence. Finally, Sirkin let him off the hook, but the damage had been done. Especially when coupled with evidence of the prosecutor's role in the creation of the summary, these events appeared to strongly and negatively flavor the credibility of the prosecution and adversely color its apparent candor before the jury.

MrMaxwell · 09-08-2010, 07:43 PM

Even more interesting

These videos had been purchased by confidential informants after deputies sent them into the store with hundred-dollar bills and instructions merely to "buy pornography." Their content was actually far richer in plot and documentary value under the "third prong" of the Miller test (relating to "serious value") than a random selection from the racks and bins of a normal adult retail establishment would be expected to yield.

However, still employed at the store and facing allegations that she had violated the terms of her probation for continuing to work at the store, which was deemed "unsuitable employment" by her probation officer, she indicated that she intended to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against testifying. The State sought and obtained an order for testimonial immunity from Judge Neal, but she still refused to testify unless and until she could confer with her independent counsel. With great tact and apparent restraint, the judge asked her whether she understood that such conduct might have "consequences" to her "liberty," though he said he didn't want to look as though he were threatening her. At that point, the State agreed to let her reach her attorney by cell phone and get advice from him concerning the order. She did so and began to testify, providing the testimony to the State that it needed.

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.

MrMaxwell · 09-08-2010, 08:03 PM

I also spoke to an elderly African-American woman on the jury who gave me the best remark. After the hearing, she said to us out on the street, 'If I paid $59.95 for a DVD and I took it home and it didn't have any naked people in it, I'd be really upset.'"

09-08-2010, 04:51 PM	#1
Joe Obenberger Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 466	Obscenity Trial in Arkansas Klan Country - Acquittal on DP/Choking Content http://business.avn.com/articles/Not...al-411387.html http://randazza.wordpress.com/2010/0...ans-thank-you/ http://www.katv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13108334 __________________ Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice. . . Restraint in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue. Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964

09-08-2010, 07:43 PM	#5
MrMaxwell Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10,057	Even more interesting These videos had been purchased by confidential informants after deputies sent them into the store with hundred-dollar bills and instructions merely to "buy pornography." Their content was actually far richer in plot and documentary value under the "third prong" of the Miller test (relating to "serious value") than a random selection from the racks and bins of a normal adult retail establishment would be expected to yield. However, still employed at the store and facing allegations that she had violated the terms of her probation for continuing to work at the store, which was deemed "unsuitable employment" by her probation officer, she indicated that she intended to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against testifying. The State sought and obtained an order for testimonial immunity from Judge Neal, but she still refused to testify unless and until she could confer with her independent counsel. With great tact and apparent restraint, the judge asked her whether she understood that such conduct might have "consequences" to her "liberty," though he said he didn't want to look as though he were threatening her. At that point, the State agreed to let her reach her attorney by cell phone and get advice from him concerning the order. She did so and began to testify, providing the testimony to the State that it needed. Last edited by MrMaxwell; 09-08-2010 at 07:46 PM..

09-08-2010, 07:58 PM	#6
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..

09-08-2010, 04:58 PM	#2
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	Good deal.

09-08-2010, 06:02 PM	#3
Elliot Caine Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 39	I love that at the end of the article in the first link there is an ad for Grudgefuck 7, yes I clicked.

09-08-2010, 07:41 PM	#4
MrMaxwell Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10,057	Interesting reading, so far.. The trial judge was Olly Neal, a black jurist just approaching 70 years of age, tall, skinny as a rail, with white, wooly hair. He served ten years on the Arkansas Appellate Court and returned to Forrest City recently to fill a vacancy caused when a St. Francis County judge got in trouble and left the bench. Though he projected a warm, charming, cordial, and often humorous kindliness during the trial, together with a careful, calm, and considerate demeanor to all in the courtroom, he essentially gave the prosecutors nearly everything they asked for, fair or foul, and gave the defense next to nothing that it sought. Maybe it's significant that he was Arkansas' first African-American elected prosecutor in 1991, but he's not known in this locale for being a conservative. A dramatic and pivotal moment of trial occurred when Lou Sirkin cross-examined the civilian State Police employee who created that summary. After establishing that the charged works each bore a copyright notice, he asked the State Police employee whether he had "respected" the copyright in making his (derivative) summary. Time passed. Silence. The uncomfortable employee started to increasingly display his discomfort as the ramifications of the question sunk in. He started to explain what he was considering in formulating his answer. More silence. Finally, Sirkin let him off the hook, but the damage had been done. Especially when coupled with evidence of the prosecutor's role in the creation of the summary, these events appeared to strongly and negatively flavor the credibility of the prosecution and adversely color its apparent candor before the jury.

09-08-2010, 08:03 PM	#7
MrMaxwell Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 10,057	I also spoke to an elderly African-American woman on the jury who gave me the best remark. After the hearing, she said to us out on the street, 'If I paid $59.95 for a DVD and I took it home and it didn't have any naked people in it, I'd be really upset.'"