LOS ANGELES (AFP) - A long-awaited obscenity trial opened and was promptly put on hold, after revelations that the top federal judge hearing the case had posted sexually explicit material on the Internet.
Judge Alex Kozinski agreed to the prosecution’s request for a 48-hour delay so the Justice Department could look into possible issues of prejudice in the case, in view of the judge’s actions.
The Los Angeles Times reported that Kozinski, 57, posted a photograph of nude women on all fours painted to look like cows, while a video on the site showed a semi-naked man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.
Kozinski told the Times he was unaware that photographs posted on his personal website could be viewed by the public and that he had removed the pictures.
The Times reported that Kozinski had blocked access to the site after being made aware that it could be viewed by the public.
The judge was quoted by the Times as saying he did not believe any of the images on the site qualified as obscene.
“Is it prurient? I don’t know what to tell you,” he said. “I think it’s odd and interesting. It’s part of life.”
Kozinski, who is chief judge of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is widely viewed as a champion of free speech who once led a successful legal bid to remove filters that blocked access to Internet pornography on computers used by 9th Circuit staff.
The Times said he declined to comment when asked if he felt he should now excuse himself from hearing the trial of Ira Isaacs, a Los Angeles-based film-maker accused of selling criminally obscene sexual fetish videos depicting bestiality and defecation.
Isaccs, 57, faces up to 20 years in jail and fines of one million dollars if convicted on multiple counts of importing or transporting obscene material for sale or distribution.
Prosecutors say Isaacs sold three films — “Gang Bang Horse ‘Pony Sex Game,’”, “Mako’s First Time Scat,” and “Hollywood Scat Amateurs No. 7,” between May 2004 and October 2006.
“These movies are not considered to be typical or ordinary pornography or consensual sex between adults,” US Department of Justice attorney Kenneth Whitted told a jury.
The films were “vile, perverted and profane to such an extent they are outside your community standards.”
Defense lawyer Roger Jon Diamond said in his opening statement that the films being peddled by Isaacs were “offensive and shocking.”
“They are disgusting, I would say, to most people,” Diamond said.
But Isaacs was a “shock artist” who would testify to the artistic merits of the films.
While neither side disputes the facts of the case, jurors will be asked to decide whether or not the films are obscene under federal law.
Any film found to have serious “literary, scientific or artistic value” does not meet the federal standard of obscenity established by a 1973 Supreme Court ruling.
Kozinsky has reconvened the trial for Monday morning.