Jurors in obscenity trial watch explicit videotape

[Soonerdawg]

Jurors in obscenity trial watch explicit videotape
By CHUCK CANNON
October 28, 2003

RUSTON — Jurors heard testimony from a Louisiana State Police trooper and watched a two-hour videotape Tuesday morning during the trial for a Lincoln Parish man charged with violating the state’s obscenity law.

Dan Sasha Birman, owner of Fantasy Video on Frontage Road between Ruston and Grambling, is accused of selling obscene material to undercover state troopers on April 17, April 23 and June 9, 2003.

In her opening statement, Third Judicial Assistant District Attorney Laurie Whitten told the jury that "sex can be a beautiful, revered thing, but somewhere along the way, what you’ll see today crosses the line."

Whitten was referring to videos allegedly purchased by state troopers from Fantasy Video.

Defense attorney Jennifer Kinsley told the jurors that the videos were not obscene.

"Evidence will show this community accepts sexually explicit material," she said during the defense’s opening statement.

Trooper Todd [glow=red:6dac7da916]Cummings [/glow:6dac7da916] 8O was the only witness to take the stand this morning.

He confirmed that he bought two videotapes and two novelty items from Fantasy Video as part of an investigation.

After [glow=red:6dac7da916]Cummings[/glow:6dac7da916] testimony and a short recess, the jury was shown a video titled "Ladies Club," the first of the two videos purchased by [glow=red:6dac7da916]Cummings.[/glow:6dac7da916]

The video contained graphic scenes of sexually activity between two and sometimes three people. Some jurors seemed unable to watch some of the scenes, often bowing their heads or closing their eyes. One juror placed their hands over their mouth during some of the scenes.

The video ended shortly after 1 p.m. and court was recessed for lunch until 2:30 p.m.

[Dawgbitten]

Hey that is a good Flick!

[glm47]

Hey that is a good Flick!

"Unable to come to a conclusion, they asked if they could view a few more of the movies"

[Champ967]

Hey that is a good Flick!

Part 4 is the best one. :wink:

[GermDawg]

Is it really illegal to sell sexualy explicit material to some one that's of age? I mean it's not like the store was going out making people watch it, and they check id's when you enter to make sure you are of age....ummm or so i'm told......yeah, hey look at that! *runs in other direction*

[Choudawg86]

No doubt Sooner was in the gallery "observing" the proceedings.

[Soonerdawg]

Jury hands over guilty verdict in obscenity trial
By Chuck Cannon
October 29, 2003

RUSTON — A Lincoln Parish jury this afternoon found Dan Sasha Birman, 23, guilty of obscenity in connection with the sale of pornographic materials at his Lincoln Parish video and adult novelty store.

In thanking the jury, 3rd District Attorney Bob Levy said the jury had “set the community standard where we believed it should have been all along — that this community does not accept hard-core graphic pornography in the type sold by the defendant.”

Levy added his office would carefully consider the next move as “we attempt to terminate the sale of material deemed obscene in this community now that we have a standard.”

John Herbison, one of the attorneys for the defense, said an appeal would be filed on Birman’s behalf. He said the defense is “disappointed” in the verdict.

The verdict ended a two-day trial.

A six-person jury in 3rd District Court rendered the unanimous verdict. Sentencing was set for Nov. 12. The penalty can be as high as six months to three years in jail. Birman could also be fined between $1,000 and $2,5000.

At issue was the sales of two movies, “Hustler Barely Legal, Vol. 16” and “Ladies Club.” State Troopers working under cover bought the videos earlier this year at Birman’s store, which is housed in a pink cinderblock building on a service road along U.S. 20, just outside the Ruston city limits. The store opened in February 2003.

Bond was set at $25,000.

[Soonerdawg]

I heard the the District Attorney was happy there was not a hung jury. Also, when one of ther jurors was asked whether it was difficult reaching a decision, he replied, "It wasn't hard."

[EJ]

You think the troopers did some "research" with the videos prior to handing them over to the district attorney?

This is such a joke. I wouldn't want one of these stores in my neighborhood, but this poor guy is being railroaded.

[Soonerdawg]

The guy was fairly stupid in how he went about it. He bought a building right down the road from the biggest church in town. Then he painted it hot pink and painted in huge words things that made it stick out like a sore thumb.

He is clearly backed by someone. I don't feel sorry for him.

We have elementary school age children, who see "toys" on the big pink building down the road from the Mexican restaurant. I, as a parent, don't want this type of flaunting in our city. I chose to live in a small town for that very reason.

It is not my business what people do in their hotel room or in their bedroom. But this crap needed to remain discrete.

He was picking a fight.

[Choudawg86]

I agree, the manner in which he went about it was not the way to enter the community and be welcomed with open . . . .. .uh, arms.

[Poisso3]

How long till this is appealed? Sure this dude made his shop very visable; if he hadn't then people in Ruston would bitch about him being sneaky about what he is selling. The big ass sign....yeah, it shows what's being sold there, but if it wasn't there, it would be thought sneaky and misleading. This guy did everything right in obtaining the permits for the business, so it's not like he was hiding what he was going to sell. This was a joke of a trial. I may not support what he peddles there, but he should have the rights to practiace free enterprise. If the Exit 52 Video place was found to be legal and is still open, why is this one any different?

[Choudawg86]

maybe because the community found some balls and made a stand for what they believed in??? Its said the community sets the standards, a jury decided that this didn't meet them, so be it. I don't know that I had a huge problem with sale, just the approach.

I thought what Levy said at the end of the newStar article was pretty funny. Said the guy might want to reconsider his lawyers advice on remaining open for business. (you have to read the article)

[glm47]

maybe because the community found some balls and made a stand for what they believed in??? Its said the community sets the standards, a jury decided that this didn't meet them, so be it. I don't know that I had a huge problem with sale, just the approach.

I thought what Levy said at the end of the newStar article was pretty funny. Said the guy might want to reconsider his lawyers advice on remaining open for business. (you have to read the article)

The community didn't set the standards. 12 people set the standards for the community. Don't get me wrong, I would just as soon it not be here, but hell, this community standard deal is BS.

Just come out and say what is obscene - showing genitals, etc. I hate to use this term here, but I guess it applies - don't beat around the bush. Spell it out and make that the law instead of 12 people deciding for everyone what they consider to be appropriate.

[Choudawg86]

weren't the 12 people selected from the community to represent the community? Fact is, he probally stood more of a chance with the 12 than if the entire population of the parish had a vote on the subject.