Corn pone, porn pone #2

I'll admit I am a bit surprised that the jury convicted the owner and the corporation of selling obscenity. I just didn't think the prosecution put on a very strong case and I figured it would be hard to get 7 jurors to agree in such a controversial case and topic. But, there were several things yet unknown in yesterday's post.

• The defense team didn't put on any defense. True, they were limited by some of the judge's rulings (couldn't tell of internet access, for example), but I (and many other courtroom observers) found it quite surprising that they offered no evidence and no testimony. For example, they could have put on a therapist who would testify about the use of sexually explicit videos in marriages with sexual dysfunction issues. They could have put on the owners of Pamela's Secrets in Harrisonburg and found out why the advertise in The News Leader nearly every day. They could have . . . . but they didn't. Overconfidence? Arrogance? Did they think they'd so totally dismantled the Commonwealth's case they didn't need to present their own? 
• The second DVD was "pretty rough" in the words of one deputy who saw parts. Anal followed by oral intercourse. Simultaneous multiple penetrations. I can imagine all the jurors were sufficiently shocked and didn't find any scientific, education, political, or any other value in the raw edged animalistic sex. It was this DVD which got the convictions.
• Ray Robertson, once he got warmed up, made a passionate moral plea about Staunton being a special place that they had an opportunity to preserve. The jurors seemed very intent on his words. 

Appeals will certainly follow and in a case with so many contested rulings by the judge, etc. the defense will find numerous grounds to take the case to the next level. But for now, the entire highly touted defense team has to be wondering where they screwed up and what to do next. As for Rick Krial, the owner of After Hours, he must be wondering what the f*^$ happened.

Corn pone, porn pone

Belle Rose has spent about a day and a half observing the so-called "Porn Trial" in Staunton Circuit Court. You can check out the media's reports at The News Leader, the News Virginian, NBC29 or TV3. Will probably return tomorrow.

Rather than relate the "facts" I'll just scratch around with the dirty birds. First, my bias - I'm almost an absolutist on the First Amendment freedoms of expression. Certainly child porn is not protected but I believe consenting adults have the right to read, view, see, hear pretty much anything else. While there may be other restrictions, this post will focus on obscenity and pornography issues, not things like national security or slander.

A few pieces of grit:

• While you never know how a jury will react and decide a case, the Commonwealth's Attorney, Ray Robertson has a weak case and is out gunned at practically every turn. One "star" witness, retired police chief Butch Wells, was rejected by Judge Wood as an expert/qualified witness on the topic of contemporary community standards/views on obscenity. The judge applauded Mr. Wells' honesty and insights into the community he served for over 30 years, but agreed with the defense that he was not an expert nor did he have special insights that qualified him. The jurors themselves will the the standard bearers for what are the community's views on adult sexual materials, obscenity, etc.
• The jurors spent nearly four hours viewing two DVDs that Mr. Robertson thinks are obscene. The screen was turned so that the jurors, the judge, the lawyers, and bailiffs could view the videos. The audience listened to moans, groans, sexual talk sprinkled with some dirty words - but saw nothing. It was surreal and pretty boring for the audience. I was a little surprised that a few in the audience whispered and there were some grins - all of which the jurors could see if they looked away from the screen.
• The jurors did a great job paying attention without too much visible emotional response. There are three female and four male jurors. I'm no judge of age, but two of the men are clearly senior citizens, one seems to be in his 50s, and the other about thirty. All of the women seem middle aged. I watched a young reporter writing down every move - a scratched nose, a yawn, looking away, or a slight grin. My observation is they were at various times shocked, bored, sleepy, amused, and by the end of the day numb.
• The defense will probably put on quite a show with a variety of witnesses on the First Amendment, the Miller case and other decisions shaping the legal definition of obscenity, and on "community standards." Since the prosecution seemed somewhat ill-prepared on these so far, I imagine the next day will be interesting as Robertson stumbles into his cross examination. 
• For all the news coverage and supposed interest in the case against After Hours Video, its owner and an employee, the courtroom is basically empty. TV and print media account for about half of the audience that usually numbers in the mid teens (people can come and go at any time). There were several senior citizens who appeared to me to be part of a church or other anti-porn group, but I really don't know who they were. A few employees of law offices and police officers make up most of the rest of the audience.
• To most objective observers, Ray Robertson has a hollow case so he must have some political or hard core personal moral motive. But, is it worth getting your clock cleaned in the courtroom and your reputation as a prosecutor sullied? Wasted dollars. Wasted police time. Wasted court time. Am I also wasting my time?

The defense begins its case tomorrow and perhaps we'll have a decision by the weekend. Or not? Maybe the jury will return guilty verdicts, but I think the very best the prosecution can hope for is a hung jury.  Ray Robertson has misrepresented the good people of Staunton.