1. No category

4/Jury Selection and Voir Dire
57
-
SAMPLE MOTION AND BRIEF VOIR DIRE
In order to limit improper questioning by opposing counsel, you
should file a motion in limine and brief in support thereof if possible.
The following draft pleadings may serve as a model.
MOTION IN LIMINE
COMES NOW t h e Commonwealth o f
I
and h e r e b y makes t h i s Motion i n Limine res p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t i n g t h e C o u r t t o i s s u e Prot e c t i v e Orders on t h e f o l l o w i n g matters.
I
VOIR DIRE
The Commonwealth o f
requests
t h a t t h e Court i s s u e a P r o t e c t i v e Order p r o -
h i b i t i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l from a s k i n g p r e j u d i -
c i a l , improper, and m i s l e a d i n g s t a t e m e n t s i n
t h e presence o f t h e j u r y r e g a r d i n g t h e follow-
i n g s u b j e c t matter:
(1) Any and a l l q u e s t i o n s t o , o r i n t h e
p r e s e n c e o f , t h e j u r y o r t h e j u r y p a n e l reg a r d i n g whether t h e y w i l l be t o o o f f e n d e d by
t h e movie "Debbie Does D a l l a s 11" o r by o t h e r
e v i d e n c e t o serve and be f a i r ;
( 2 ) Any and a l l q u e s t i o n s t o , o r i n t h e
v
03
h
Y
Lc
G
U-
0
Y
Y
Lc
c:
U.
K
rt
0
t+l
(D
v)
3
rt
3
m
(D
rt
P,
rt
v)
a
3
PJ
v)
3
O
P-
rt
(D
v)
9
3
cl
P
(D
P,
P
a
3
w
(D
v)
Y
'd
(D
r
rt
5- Lc5
0
Y
0
.
rt
~~
.a.
(D
rt
3
(D
[n
(D
M
'd
(D
cl
f3!?
(D
3
cl
(D
cn
(D
Y
'd
3
I
cP-
(D
K
rt
M
0
Lc
P,
II
Lc
a
(D
v1
c:
P,
Y
0
P
Lc
P
KY
rt
(D
9
d
3
3
a
r-
P,
Y
9
(D
Y
P
(D
3
P,
'd
Y
Lc
r:
U-
(D
3
Hl
(D
P,
0
[n
2 .rt
(D
P,
Y
Lc
rt
.
3
(D
rt
3
P-
0
Y
0
rt
v)
3
O
P-
rt
(D
v)
9
P
I-J
P,
a
3
P,
Lc
3
v)
.
%
P,
P-
a
3
pl
rt
e
.
v)
9
a
c
n
3
.
(D
3
rt
3
P-
Y
0
0
rt
v)
3
0
rt
r-
(D
v)
9
P
P
0,
a
P,
5
Lc
v
n
:-;-
rt
P,
9
(D
P-
cr-
Y
P
(D
3
P,
'd
Lc
e
r:
U-
0
Y
Y
Lc
r:
U.
rt
cl
P,
(D
.
3
cl
(D
Y
(D
M
(D
Y
'd
01
P
r:
X
(D
tn
3
0
.
0
P,
P
r
0
(D
3
cl
3
VI
Y
(D
'd
(D
Y
P-
(D
cn
Y
'd
P
5 2
W
4
h
rt
KP-
(D
(D
r
I
(D
Y
P
(D
23
Y
Lc
c:
U.
(D
rt
3
0
Y
Y
Lc
r:
U.
(D
rt
3
.
M
0
(D
3
cl
(D
v)
(D
x
(D
3
r3
rt
0
Y
.
0
rt
2
0
r-
rt
VI
(D
9
P
P,
P
a
3
P,
5
Lc
v
Ln
n
Ip
h
r:
e
-
d
Y
(D
Y
(D
ct
3
5
3
9
a
P-
P,
Y
9
(D
Y
I-J
(D
3
P,
'd
Y
Lc
r:
U-
(D
rt
3
M
0
(D
0
.
(D
r3
rt
3
Y
0
0
rt
v)
3
O
rt
r-
02
(D
t!
P
P
9,
a
3
P,
Lc
v
v)
.-
cn
rt
(D
Y
(D
3
rt
P-
3
3
9
a
P-
e
P,
9
(D
Y
I-J
(D
'd
P,
3
Lc
Y
r:
U-
0
Y
Y
Lc
c
U.
K
rt
n,
0
(D
3
cl
(D
(n
(D
Y
'd
w
n
(D
3
r3
rt
0
Y
O
.rt
v)
3
0
r-
rt
01
(D
t!
P
P
P,
3
P,
Lc
W
5 rt:- 5
.
.
a
3
(D
(D
v)
x
3
I
(D
6
I-J
(D
3
P,
'd
Y
Lc
c:
U.
(D
rt
0
Y
Y
Lc
c:
K
U-
rt
0
.r
(D
3
cl
(D
v)
(D
Y
'd
C
01
(D
v
rt
5-
0
Y
0
.
rt
n
0
rt
rt
P,
v
(D
rt
P
Lc
0
rt
(D
01
3
n,
ID
3
r-
a
P,
rt
0
3
01
P-
rt
P-
E
rt
3
P,
rt
IP,
P,
F
Y
(D
rt
3
P,
(D
3
(D
%
01
cp
5-
bc
rt
r-
Y
n,
0
(D
I-
a
r01
rr
C
Hl
Y
a
(D
v
01
P-
F
0
(D
5-
Y
n
PI
0
PP,
Y
(D
rt
2
s
01
F
01
0
Y
0
a
(D
3
rt
(D
Y
01
01
(D
a
rt
01
*.
I-
P,
a
c
9
5- 5-
rt
3
(D
01
b-
8
3
P-
rt
01
(D
2
P,
II-
a
3
P,
Lc
g
w
W
P
h
v
rt
0
n
I
P,
rt
tT
01
(D
(D
rt
rt
3-
K-
a
rt
Y
PJ
3
0
n
'c
I-
rt
n
(D
Y
a
P-
3
Y
r-
0
Lc
F
rt
n
(D
Y
a
rY
3
Lc
v
P
N
h
r
v
3
Y
0
0
rt
.
01
3
O
(D
z
0
a
Y
0
C
Y
Lc
U.
?
3
F
P,
a
c
P-
2-
a
3
P-
3
0
Y
69
rt
P,
I-
0
I-
(D
3
P,
'd
Lc
Y
C
j-
I-
v
(D
rt
n,
Lc
W
c-'
P
h
3
(D
v
rt
5-
0
Y
0
.rt
01
rt
r-
01
(D
e
s
II-
P,
a
P,
. 8
0
(D
U.
(D
n
3
c
ra
0
(D
O
rt
L
*. c H l
uC
Y
( D P ,
0
3
0
(D
P-
rt
3
c
5-
rt
3 ' d
Hl
o
2
m
01
0 1 r t
Y
(D
'd
4Y 0rt
rt
01
(D
t!
I-
I-
PJ
a
P,
rt
PJ
rt
I-
(D
3
P,
'd
Y
Lc
C
U.
Y
0
Y
Lc
c
U.
(D
rt
Hl
. g
0
(D
n
(D
01
(D
'd
a
4
0
C
F
(D
Y
a
3
r
0
n,
rt
01
5-
P,
rt
Y
(D
n
P,
Y
(D
v
Y
Lc
c
U.
0
Y
Y
Lc
c
U.
(D
rt
r
0
(D
0
3
(D
C
01
n
(D
w
(D
3
rt
5
Y
0
O
.rt
(D
3
2 5 V I P ,
*'
?
P,
r t ( D
PJ
0 1 6
5
r Y
O
0
*.
(D
n
i?
3
c
r-
(D
(D
rt
3
Hl
0
rt
3
(D
c
(D
U.
Y
'd
P,
~
Y
3
$
Y
r
0
519
II-
P,
n
-I
(D
'd
Y
Lc
c
U.
0
Y
Lc
Y
c
U.
(D
r
rt
Hl
0
(D
n
(D
01
(D
'd
3
r
(D
rt
6-
0
Y
O
rt
.
VI
3
0
rt
r-
01
t!n,
P
I-
P,
a
P,
g
Lc
w
W
n
, Y
P ,
5
Y
Lc
c
U.
(D
v
r
rt
0
01
Y
(D
3
(D
rt
P,
IP-
5r-
v
0
Y
( D m
I - 0 1
*.
P
3
P,
8
O
.
' d e
Lc
6
U.
Y
o r t
3-
3
0
Lc
fi?
3
(D
rt
P,
(D
c
3
P,
0
Y
0
rt
.
a
(D
9
3
P-
i?
01
(D
P,
Y
rt
P,
rt
I-
(D
3
P,
TI
~~
The Preparation and Trial of an Obscenity Case
60
presence o f , the j u r y o r the jury panel t h a t
would d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t t h e
e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e o f l a w t h a t t h e r i g h t t o pos-
sess obscene m a t e r i a l i n t h e p r i v a c y o f t h e
home d o e s n o t create a r i g h t t o d i s t r i b u t e o r
receive i t .
I1
P l a i n t i f f r e q u e s t s a P r o t e c t i v e Order p r o h i b i t i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l from i n t r o d u c i n g any
alleged "comparable" s e x u a l l y e x p l i c i t mate-
r i a l ( o r t e s t i m o n y t h e r e o f ) w h i c h may be
a v a i l a b l e o r d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h e Commonwealth
of
or
County.
I11
USE OF ALLEGED EXPERTS AND PUBLIC OPINION POLL
P l a i n t i f f r e q u e s t s a P r o t e c t i v e Order p r o h i b i t i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l from i n t r o d u c i n g any
improper " e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y " on t h e i s s u e o f
"prurient i n t e r e s t " o r "patent offensiveness,
u n d e r "contemporary community s t a n d a r d s , " o r
I'
.
I
v)
(D
a
P-
3
rt
5
(D
%
rt
r
(D
rt
v)
rt
v)
Y
2r-
r-
hl
(D
rt
3
P,
rt
rt
3
Y
Y
c
U.
r
(D
rt
(D
'd
Y
0
P,
P
.
n,
Y
r-
rt
P,
3
(D
3
(D
0
Y
0
I
'd
EY
Y
0
(D
c
r-
rt
0
(D
rt
Y
0
w
PI
0)
rt
v)
(D
3
Y
n,
0
n,
PHI
(D
v)
v)
3
rt
0
r-
P,
P
w
rt
3
(D
(D
0
rn
(D
Y
'd
rt
Y
0
'd
c
v)
rt
P
E
P,
59
rt
3
v)
(D
3
0
0
O
rt
cc
P
3
0
P,
P
P-
Y
(D
E
rt
a
P
0
v)
0
Y
a
(D
3
rt
(D
Y
(D
v)
v)
5-
c
v)
b-
r
(D
rt
rt
r
P,
rt
P
PI
P-
Y
(D
E
rt
(D
3
(D
0
v)
b-
0
9
3
P-
e
rt
b-
rt
Y
r-
v)
a
r-
Hl
0
(D
5-
Y
0
P,
.
r
0
n,
(D
3
v)
0
rt
(D
a
P,
v)
P-
rt
P-
rt
P,
rt
cc
Y
c
U-
(D
rt
3
n,
0
(D
0
3
v)
(D
(D
Y
'd
Y
I
0
Y
'd
%
Y
6
0
(D
7-
rt
(0
c)
rt
0
v
P,
VI
rt
v)
(D
3
Y
Hl
H,
r-
Grt
P
P,
w
Y
c
3
a
(D
-
5-
P-
-
(D
2-
v)
3
n,
0
(D
v)
:
VI
Hl
H,
(D
(D
rt
3
0
3
v)
P
0
'd
G3
O
'd
K-
P
tT
a
'd
c
(D
9
6
(D
'd
0
Y
v
0
Y
w
Y
Y
0
c
(D
P-
rt
c)
(D
rt
Y
0
w
P-
rt
P=,
cp
5- &'d
cc
3
P,
3
9
P-
c)
a
c
0
Y
5rt
Y
M
P
P,
0)
v)
(D
rt
(D
v)
c
CQ
(D
Y
0
VI
P
P,
c3
0
0
(D
VI
3
H,
(D
(D
%
P
P
P,
0
cc
P
3
rt
(D
rt
d
P,
-
0
Y
rt
.-
VI
(D
Y
(D
5rt
rt
3
(D
P-
G
d
Y
3
P-
.o
v)
rt
P-
rt
Y
P,
.
cc
Y
P,
Y
(D
rt
P-
P
cv)
0
r-
Y
(D
v)
-
n,
0
(D
c
VI
Pv)
rt
0
F
a
0
r3
h
VI
.
3
0
VI
Y
(D
9
VI
(D
c
r-
19
2
P-
(D
0
3
rt
Y
!
I
?
3
(D
(D
Y
%M
Y
0
(D
5 519
&
Y
rt
VI
a
r-
0
rt
g
19
P-
Y
Y
Lc
P,
P
P
(D
3
g
g
0
0
Y
0
rt
ct
c
P-
.
-
3
P-
VI
I-
P,
P-
I
P-
Y
w
0
rt
Y
(D
z
19
P-
Y
$
rt
rt
3
P,
rt
Y
Y
c
U.
(D
M
rt
3
0
(D
0
3
(D
VI
(D
Y
9
i?
ct
(D
3
(D
0
VI
tf
0
VI
VI
(D
VI
VI
0
+d
0
rt
19
Y
Y
0
Y
-
0
P,
rt
0
(D
rt
0
Y
v
PJ
VI
rt
VI
(D
9
Y
M
M
r-
(D
rt
3
j-
.
P,
Y
0
I
'd
%
Y
(D
i
!rt
9,
P
v
7
rt
;-0Y
19
rt
VI
M
Y
P
(D
VI
3
C
0
0
(D
3
VI
(D
flM?
F
19
rt
P-
b-
P-
3
H
c
H
2
P
(D
I
d
P,
P
3
c
0
Y
a
Pa
rt
@3
3
%M
3
P,
rt
rt
I-
PJ
P-
Y
(D
rt
P,
3
(D
3
(D
ZT0
0
(D
3
Y
0
19
I
01
a
P-
M
0
(D
3
0
Y
P-
(D
3
rt
0
rt
K
rt
rt
P-
3
P,
M
0
C
F
3
rt
g E
M
19
P-
Y
rt
(D
0
&VI
VI
P,
d
a
(D
rt
&
c
Y
rt
VI
a
P-
I-
P,
P-
Y
(D
rt
P,
3
$
rt
Y
3
.
rt
P,
rt
VI
3
0
M
Y
P
(D
3
VI
c
0
0
(D
3
VI
(D
%
M
19
g
3
rbrrt
w
0
(D
-
3
VI
(0
rt
5-
5-9
%
1
.
M
P,
VI
P-
rt
P-
rt
3
P,
rt
Y
Y
C
U.
(D
rt
M
0
(D
0
3
(D
VI
(D
+d
I-
0
I
w
TI
%
Y
0
Y
(D
c
rt
r-
0
(D
rt
0
6
w
P,
VI
rr
VI
(D
9
Y
M
M
P-
I
;
rt
P,
w
c
H
3
P
P,
P-
Y
(D
rt
z
(D
(D
0
VI
I
M
0
3
0
5
r-
&
Y
rt
VI
a
r-
P
P,
j-
5-
Y
0
rt
0
rt
(D
3
VI
(D
fl?M
P,
%
VI
cr-
Y
0
9
0
Y
I-
P,
.
r-
Y
(D
rt
P,
3
(D
3
(D
VI
0
b-
0
M
0
3
0
rt
r-
c
rt
Y
rb-
IQ
I-J
cn
3
9
r
I
C
d
Y
-
P,
VI
P,
*.
0
P,
rt
r
d
0
h
a
r-
P,
rt
Y
3
Y
0
Y
C
rt
VI
Y
?I
t,
C
P
P,
E?
2r-
a
3
r-
t,
0,
v
e-
3
P,
rt
cn
Lc
3
rrt
C
3
0
-
VI
c
(D
(D
r-
P
e
(D
h
U-
(D
2-
rt
0
$
Y
0
'd
P,
Y
(D
r
3
(0
rt
d
Y
r
(D
..
(D
c
P
0
5c
zi
Lc
VI
r-
rt
VI
C
(D
In
C
cl
3
cn
z
(D
VI
P
P,
9
(D
P,
rJ
0
r-
3
3
0
(D
rt
59
3
Y
(D
0
3
0
0
VI
Y
0
Y
G
U.
(D
2-
rt
0
x
VI
P
VI
Y
0
'd
0
rt
3
r-
5-
a
(D
c
P
0
P-
(D
0-
PP
P
d
3
0
P-
z
3
VI
rt
'd
(D
0
3
0
0
U
P,
(D
VI
rt
r0
3
2
0
rt
3
9
(D
rt
rt
P,
Lc
9
$
VI
3
0
G
0
(D
VI
3
(D
h
(D
5
9
a
Y
(D
'd
0
(D
3
0
C
cn
3
VI
O
P-
rt
VI
5- 2
Y
'd
Lc
VI
t-J
P,
(D
0
C
VI
t-J
3
r-
Y
0
?
3
r-
VI
2
3
0
0
e
cr-
0
(D
P,
Y
3
VI
O
rt
r-
VI
(D
r-
P
(D
cn
3
C
0
0
(D
VI
3
(D
%
HI
3
O
.
P-
rt
P,
9
r-
rt
P
Lc
rt
r-
3
(D
VI
0
0-
0
Y
Lc
P
2
t-'
Y
(
D
o
W
rt
U-
rt
v,
2
cn
(D
7
8
cn
9
(D
3-
rt
cn
Y
0
cY
a
3
9,
0
rt
.
a
(D
P
P,
x
Tb
P,
(D
b-
3
P,
c)
P,
v
cn
(D
c
P
(D
i!
g
rt
cn
Y
0
cY
U-
v,
P,
3
0
rt
v
(D
c
01
.
3
h
(D
-
P
Tb
0
(D
Tb
(D
Y
P,
CQ
(D
X
(D
(D
cn
c)
5-
cn
cn
rt
(D
Y
(D
Lrt
tY
cn
0
(D
b-
0
rt
rt
P,
v
rt
%I
n,
0
rt
P,
Y
Tb
P,
(D
b-
2
Lc
P-
rt
P,
(D
9
3
P-
3
O
P-
rt
v,
20
g
rt
Lc
b-
-I
(D
3
Tb
‘c
Y
G
.
U.
(D
rt
3
(D
rt
P,
3
P-
Y
rt
P
.
Tb
9
P,
X
(D
Y
0
?I
‘c
rt
P,
Y
Tb
I
5
8
c)
0
rt
3
3
(D
rt
rt
P,
3
P,
cn
P,
3
P,
v
rt
Y
(D
rt
3
0
(D
(n
0
4
c
‘d
0
3
v)
(D
c
Y
(D
[I)
cn
3
O
P-
rt
cn
(D
c
A
(D
v)
(D
rt
3
59
7
c
0
3
r-
EL
.-
Y
a
P,
3
P,
rt
v)
‘c
rt
P-
3
8c
c)
t-c
0
Y
P,
Y
w
rt
(D
3
3
0
c)
I
3
0
(D
P,
Y
v)
z
(D
cP-
Y
P-
(D
rt
3
grt
d
w
4
n
3
.
X
(D
cn
3
P-
-
rt
cn
(D
Y
(D
rt
P-
i?
(D
P-
Y
d
2
c
(D
P,
3
-
cn
3
0
v)
Y
x
3
d
F
!Y
0)
P-
0
vl
Y
(D
w
%
Y
P,
3
9,
rt
d
0
Hl
3
a
(D
P
0
x
5
0
0
cn
Y
0
Y
c
U.
P-
rt
c)
$
Y
0
w
2
rt
Y
(D
rt
3
(D
5
X
.
(D
VI
3
P-
w
rrt
3
3
P,
cn
P,
Y
0
Y
c
U-
(D
2-
rt
c)
$
0
Y
w
P,
Y
(D
3
rt
..rt-
(D
0)
Y
(D
5 6rt
(D
v
n
Y
(D
m
4/Jury Selection and Voir Dire
65
become s e x u a l l y a r o u s e d when v i e w i n g t h e mater i a l during the t r i a l .
These a r g u m e n t s are
clear d i s t o r t i o n s of t h e l a w , b u t w i l l have a
greater chance o f p e r s u a d i n g o r c o n f u s i n g t h e
j u r y i f t h e legal terms a t i s s u e can be man i p u l a t e d and t w i s t e d d u r i n g v o i r d-.
The
Court s h o u l d n o t a l l o w v o i r ire q u e s t i o n s
which are n o t r e l e v a n t o r which would n o t ,
however answered, a f f e c t t h e j u r o r ' s competency.
The Court w i l l i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y a s t o t h e
t e c h n i c a l l e g a l meanings o r d e f i n i t i o n s o f
these terms a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e .
The u s e
o f t h e s e t e r m s on v o i r d i r e q u e s t i o n i n g w i l l
e l i c i t answers which may have no c o n n e c t i o n o r
r e l e v a n c e t o t h e a c t u a l meaning o f these concepts.
The n e t r e s u l t w i l l be t o mislead,
c o n f u s e , and p r e j u d i c e t h e j u r y .
(1) P e r s on a l o p i n i o n s o f what c on s t i t u t e s
o b s c en i t v a r e i r r e l e v a n t t o a nv i s s u e
t h e jury w i l l consider.
The i s s u e of o b s c e n i t y ,
including "prurient
i n t e r e s t " and " p a t e n t o f f e n s i v e n e s s ,
i s t o be
decided " o b j e c t i v e l y " based on t h e j u r o r s un-
j
r
.*
Y
03
cn
4
(D
cP-
(D
rt
c
P,
P-
Y
'd
0
Y
P
P,
3
0
cn
P-
rt
Y
I
0
0
w
w
W
p3
a
(D
a,
. xct
cn
Y
I
z
(D
.a
fi?
3
H
0
c
0
Pa
(D
rt
0
C
P,
P
a
2
t+
(D
g
w
cn
3
0
O
rt
3
rt
cl
(D
U-
a
0
a
3
a,
.
59
2
cn
3
cl
0
.rt
3
c
P,
P-
2rt
cl
8
b-
a
P
C
0
D-
01
cn
Y
0
H
G
U-
rt
P,
r
rt
&
. z
- 4 x
W
P r -
P-
3
0
c
I
(D
P
(D
Y
Y
P-
cn
P-
P
P,
P-
Y
(D
2rt
M
0
-
cn
2cn
(D
P-
01
3
(D
0
M
M
3
rt
(D
rt
-
d
PJ
.Y
0
rt
cn
(D
H
(D
5rt
rt
3
(D
P-
ti
d
2
.
Lc
3
rrt
(D
cl
cn
b-
0
3
0
cn
H
0
Y
r=
U-
.
c
(D
r-
rt
cl
(D
'd
cn
0
Y
'd
(D
?-
rt
M
0
3
Ln
O
P-
3
0
'd
P-
P
P,
3
0
cn
Y
(D
'd
(D
cl
3
(D
LC
(D
v
3
rt
0
cr
cl
(D
M
M
(D
bLc
a
(D
9
r=
a
U.
5rt
P
PJ
Y
P-
(D
2rt
h
w
w
W
4
P
h
&
w
w
I
w
.cn
P
cn
C
w
P
&
w
..
4
cn
w
P
h
W
cn
(SI
.
b
4
cn
C
&
cn
w
BI
cn
-
Y
0
Y
C
U.
Y
C
P
PJ
3
-
Lc
'd
?-
PJ
Y
9
0
2Y
(D
0
Y
I
5-
0
Y
Lc
rt
cP-
P-
cn
Pct
3
ID
cn
P
P,
3
0
(n
R ?
Y
Y
a,
?-
0
rt
Lc
rt
rc
r-
rt
cn
o
P-
P-
'd
3
(D
PJ
Y
rt
cn
3
HI
0
3
9
P-
a
P,
cn
rt
!iY?
rt
7
P,
cn
Lc
rt
P-
23
E3
cl
0
Lc
Y
P,
Y
0
'd
3
(D
3
rt
0
0
a
P
4
2
3
0
cn
Y
(D
'd
(D
9
Y
P,
(D
c
P,
--
(D
v
rt
- g4
(D
D-
rt
!Yi?
3
c
cl
rt
P,
(D
Y
4/Jury Selection and Voir Dire
67
done.
And see:
87,
104-05
Hamlina v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 4 1 8 U . S .
(1974).
Obviously, there i s n o one p e r s o n who
q u a l i f i e s as t h e "average p e r s o n " u n d e r "con-
temporary community s t a n d a r d s "
-- "average
person" is an o b j e c t i v e concept used only t o
determine obscenity, similar t o the "reasonable man" c o n c e p t u t i l i z e d i n t o r t l a w .
The
o p i n i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l j u r o r s a b o u t "obscenity,
" p r u r i e n t appeal,
"patent offensive-
It
n e s s , " o r t h e p o s s i b l e impact o f t h e m a t e r i a l
on themselves i s i r r e l e v a n t t o any i s s u e t o be
decided by t h e j u r y .
They a r e t h e r e f o r e n o t a
p r o p e r s u b j e c t f o r voir
dire e x a m i n a t i o n .
( 2 ) R e l e v a n t case a u t h o r i t v c on s i st e n t l v
u p h o l d s t he e x c l u s i o n o f v o i r d i r e
l e a a l conceDts o f o b s c e n i t v l a w .
The l a w i s c l e a r t h a t j u r o r s c a n n o t be
asked voir
dire q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t e c h n i -
cal legal concepts of o b s c e n i t y l a w .
The
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n of Smith
v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 4 3 1 U . S .
s q u a r e l y on p o i n t .
291 (1977),
is
I n Smith, p e t i t i o n e r (per-
The Preparation and Trial of an Obscenity Case
68
n o g r a p h e r ) argued t h a t t h e " p r o s p e c t i v e j u r y
s h o u l d have been asked a b o u t t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of I o w a ' s Community s t an d a r d a n d Iowa
law."
u.,
308.
The Court rejected t h e con-
t e n t i o n t h a t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s s h o u l d be
asked t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f l e g a l c o n c e p t s .
The p a r t i c u l a r i n q u i r i e s r e q u e s t e d
by p e t i t i o n e r s would n o t have e l i c ited useful information about the
j u r o r s ' q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o apply
contemporary community s t a n d a r d s i n
an o b j e c t i v e way. A r e q u e s t f o r
the jurors' description of their
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of community s t a n dards would have b e e n no more appropriate than a request f o r a
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e meaning o f "reasonableness." Neither t e r m l e n d s
i t s e l f t o precise d e f i n i t i o n .
U.
The Court s t a t e d t h a t t h i s d i d n o t "pre-
c l u d e o t h e r more s p e c i f i c a n d l e s s c o n c l u s o r y
questions f o r v o i r dire."
T h e Court provided
e x c e l i e n t examples o f p r o p e r voir dire q u e s tioning:
F o r example, it might be h e l p f u l t o
know how l o n g a j u r o r has been a
member o f t h e community, and w i t h
w h a t organizations having an i n t e r est i n t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f o b s c e n i t y
t h e j u r o r h a s been a f f i l i a t e d .
a. T h e
1
C o u r t ' s r e a s o n i n g i n Smith would, o f
c o u r s e , p e r t a i n t o o t h e r improper v o i r d i r e
4/ Jury Selection and Voir Dire
69
q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o o t h e r o b s c e n i t y l a w con-
cepts.
None o f t h e q u e s t i o n s c o v e r e d by t h e
Motion i n Limine would e l i c i t " u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n about the j u r o r ' s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o apply
contemporary community s t a n d a r d s i n a n o b j e c t ive way. ts
Another case s q u a r e l y on p o i n t i s U n j t e d
S t a t e s v. Tho-
,
6 1 3 F . 2 d 787 ( 1 0 t h C i r .
1 9 8 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 449 U . S .
888 ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
There t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f 32 c o u n t s
o f c a u s i n g obscene m a t e r i a l t o be mailed i n
One o f t h e i s s u e s
v i o l a t i o n o f federal l a w .
b e f o r e t h e c o u r t w a s whether t h e b a r r i n g o f
v o i r dire questions r e l a t i n g t o "prurient in-
terest" w a s proper.
I n a f f i r m i n g the convic-
t i o n s , t h e c o u r t stated:
Generally, v o i r d i r i n g p o t e n t i a l
.
I
j u r o r s on t h e i r perspect ive o f t h e
s t a n d a r d s t hev w i l l be asked t o
m p l v i s n o t f a v o r e d . Such s t a n dards must be c o n s i d e r e d a n d app l i e d as t h e y r e l a t e t o t h e spec i f i c f a c t s o f t h e case. "Appeal
t o prurient interest," l i k e the
concept o f "reasonableness" i n a
negligence action, is not suscept i b l e t o simple a b s t r a c t i o n . T h e
Court's r e f u s a l of a p p e l l a n t ' s v o i r
dire r e q u e s t w a s n o t an abuse of
discretion.
The Preparation and Trial of an Obscenity Case
70
--
~~~
~~
I
613 F.2d a t 7 9 4 (emphasis a d d e d ) .
The prohibition against voir
dire examina-
t i o n r e l a t i n g t o l e g a l concepts i s g e n e r a l l y
uniform.
For i n s t a n c e , t h e N o r t h C a r o l i n a
case o f S t a t e v . P h i l l i p s , 268 S.E.2d 452
(N.C.
is representative.
1980),
question i n
Phillir>s w a s
The ~ s 2 . hdire
whether t h e " d e f e n -
d a n t would have t o p r o v e a n y t h i n g t o h e r bef o r e he would be e n t i t l e d t o a verdict o f n o t
guilty."
The c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n w a s
properly refused by the t r i a l court, s t a t i n g :
Counsel s h o u l d n o t f i s h f o r a n s w e r s
e iu&e
has i n s t r u c t e d t h e 3' u r o r on a p D l icable l e a a 1 D r i n c i P l e s bv which t h e
i u r o r s h o u l d be a u i d e d . Coun s e l
wav w h i l e cmest i o n i n g t h e i u r o r g .
Counsel s h o u l d n o t engage i n e f f o r t s t o indoctrinate, visit w i t h
o r e s t a b l i s h "rapport" w i t h jurors.
J u r o r s s h o u l d n o t be asked w h a t
k i n d of v e r d i c t t h e y would r e n d e r
u n d e r c e r t a i n named c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
F i n a l l y , q u e s t i o n s s h o u l d be asked
c o l l e c t i v e l y of t h e e n t i r e p a n e l
whenever p o s s i b l e .
(emphasis
added)
The l e s s o n s of these cases i s t h a t any
questions relating t o "prurient interest,"
"patent offensiveness,
l1
"average p e r s o n " and
r
Lc
P
3
0
3
P,
cl
rt
01
(D
rt
(D
r
rt
(D
cl
5-
01
rt
3
c
P,
(D
P
(D
Y
Y
r-
01
r-
X
(D
.-
01
3
5-
rt
01
(D
Y
(D
5rt
a
P-
b-
Y
3
0
Y
0
F
P
(D
s
3-
01
-
0
Y
01
.rt-
(D
Y
5-
3
P,
(D
3
(D
rt
3
0
cr
5cq
rt
P
P,
P-
3
Prt
P-
%
n,
cq
I
(D
3
rt
P,
cl
P-
P
73
w
P,
3
r-
Y
C
d
Y
-
(D
P
O
. .
'd
9
X
P,
(D
Y
0
n,
n,
0
. .
(D
rt
n,
3
cl
01
P-
X
(D
Y
0
.
(D
0
rt
r-
3
P-
rt
cn
I
(D
Y
Y
0
Y
C
U.
(D
2-
rt
cl
(D
'd
Y
0
01
'd
P,
n,
0
3
O
P-
5-
'd
0
?a
v
h
br.
h
PI
3
P-
n,
a
(D
P
P,
19
(D
P
cl
rt
(D
0
0
Y
Y
Y
P-
(D
rt
3
rt
rt
3
0
C
5:
P-
v
z r t
w
(D
2-
rt
cl
U.
(D
0
3
P,
5-
%
Y
t
3
P,
rt
01
Lc
rt
P-
3
C
cl
z
Y
P,
Y
Lc
0
$"d
3
P-
0
Y
c
U-
(D
c
P-
cl
rt
(D
'd
01
0
Y
'd
(D
r
b0
C
rt
rt
3
P,
I
cl
0
3
'c
P
I
P-
P
P,
2
Y
; VI-
P,
0
Y
.
Y
Lc
c
U.
(D
rt
3
3
0
(D
2
(D
01
0
rt
01
O
0
3
rt
P,
2
n,
0
r-
n,
Pcl
P,
rt
w
h
G-I
P
C
n,
(D
01
C
rt
P-
cl
P
P-
(D
rt
0
3
i?
01
3
PO
rt
01
(D
2
r
(D
GI
v
z
a
(D
Y
a
(D
P-
01
cl
0
3
(D
b-
Lc
P
3
0
cl
P,
3
rt
01
.
(D
rt
r
(D
rt
C
'd
(D
2x
3
Pcl
3
P
h
b-
P-
3
s
901
(D
cl
cl
(D
r
rt
a
P,
rt
01
.
(D
rt
Lc
rt
cl
(D
3
01
0
r
(D
GI
Y
3
5-
3
0
Y
(D
4
Y
'd
(D
P,
Y
01
.
rt
(D
'd
cl
3
0
cl
0
01
(D
3
n,
rt
0
G2
3
P,
(D
rt
3
:
0
Y
3
VI
PO
rt
P-
%
Hl
%a
(D
P
P
P,
Lc
P,
0
PJ
rt
P3
cq
rt
P
(D
Y
01
3
PO
o
%
3
a
Y
0
G
Y
U.
(D
c
P-
rt
o
(D
'd
0
01
Y
'd
(D
c
PI
(D
ID
n,
rt
3
0
3
0
P-
rr
'd
P-
Y
o
VI
(D
rt
r
o
r
P-
PJ
'd
Y
cq
PJ
Y
(D
PJ
n,
rt
v
t-'
h
-
Y
(D
rt
3
z
*
cp
5-
r
v)
P,
(D
.
~~
3
rt
v)
7
t+
5-
PJ
;t:
3
O
P-
rt
x
0
01
-
n,
n,
P-
rt
5-
PJ
P
w
3
VI
O
P-
rt
v)
(D
aG
n,
0
(D
Y
'd
P
..
a
(D
rt
PJ
o
a
P-
3
P-
v)
P
5- 5cp
z
0
I-
P
0
n,
(D
rt
(D
(D
b-
PJ
3
PO
rt
o
U.
(D
b-
0
a
3
P,
Y
(D
'd
0
.
5-
'd
Y
-
-
-
r
c
PJ
01
rt
o
Y
P
b-
PJ
o
0
(D
Y
Y
P-
3
(D
$
01
PJ
v)
5cq
P
r
.
II
(D
(D
n,
I-
3
PJ
Y
01
0
d
(D
Y
I
VI
(D
5
v
3
(D
x
P,
rr
v)
-
P-
(D
3
rt
Y
rt
3
P-
(D
o
v)
b-
0
0
(D
3
Y
Y
a
PJ
3
rt
PJ
v)
r
0
rt
(D
rt
P,
P
(D
Y
Y
(D
rt
cn
PJ
v)
(D
P,
01
P-
b-
F
a
3
P,
z .a
v)
P-
(D
rt
3
P-
(D
rt
Y
4'd
Y
3
PJ
Y
3
(D
rt
rt
3
PJ
rt
3
P0
01
E
3
0
3
a
(D
x
PO
.
P,
VI
(D
Y
PJ
Y
(D
rt
3
rt
r-
3
P-
Rn,
t
(D
o
3
3
0
Y
(D
PJ
rt
P
P,
r
K
9
(D
P
P
P,
o
P-
T
o
(D
rt
Y
P-
(D
r
Y
P
Y
f
Y
'd
0
rt
rt
Y
C
0
0
(D
rt
Y
rt
0
0
n,
rt
cP
o
P-
n,
n,
a
P-
P
(D
(D
rt
01
PJ
Y
Y
G
U.
(D
3
[I)
b-
(D
v)
C
01
-
rt
E
3
3
(D
n,
(D
U
i?
e
i
3
O
P-
C
VI
i-
P-
01
(D
K
PJ
El
Y
Fi
I-
Y
Lc
c
U.
Y
0
n,
I-
P,
P-
rt
3
(D
rt
0
'd
rt
P,
(D
9
v)
(D
rt
PJ
(D
Y
o
(D
Y
a
P-
Y
3
n,
P-
0
c
0
o
5- G(D
Y
(D
3
0
rt
(D
a
rt
o
(D
U-
0
v)
E3
rt
01
(D
0
2 ; Xrr n,
0
rt
3
Y
Y
5- Co i! i?
cq
rt
01
Y
2
rt
i
?0
Y
P-
0)
3
0
o
0
rt
(D
Y
a
P-
6
c
0
P-
r
3
0
01
3
(D
o
3
0
c)
(D
v)
(D
rt
n,
0
(D
v)
zr:
rt
Y
P
.
v)
C
O
cP-
b-
0
3
-
Y
a
PJ
P,
rt
01
Y
rt
P-
3
C
8
o
z
n,
0
x
Y
0
<
(D
3
n,
Y
P,
rt
3
P-
r
E
rt
P-
Y
Y
C
U-
rt
bY
a
(D
Y
I?
P-
01
3
0
o
4/Jury Selection and Voir Dire
73
( 2 ) h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g what
t h e e v i d e n c e might show and what t h e p r o s p e c -
t i v e j u r o r ' s r e a c t i o n would be.
Such q u e s t i o n s a r e improper f o r several
reasons.
F i r s t , t h e effect o f s u c h q u e s t i o n s i s t o
i n t i m i d a t e and mislead t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s
i n t o b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e y s h o u l d e x c u s e themselves ( o r be e x c u s e d ) from s e r v i n g on t h e
j u r y i f t h e y would be o f f e n d e d by t h e materi-
als.
T h i s i s a complete d i s t o r t i o n o f t h e
law, because one o f t h e t e s t s which must be
applied by them as j u r o r s i s t h e " p a t e n t o f -
fensiveness" test.
It is therefore highly
improper f o r d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t o l o c a t e p r o spective j u r o r s who would p e r s o n a l l v f i n d
prong two ( " p a t e n t o f f e n s i v e n e s s " ) o f t h e
M i l l e r t e s t p r e s e n t based on d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e , and t h e n t o
mislead t h o s e j u r o r s i n t o b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e y
must be excused from t h e j u r y b e c a u s e t h e y
cannot be f a i r .
Such a q u e s t i o n i s a l s o m i s -
l e a d i n g because it f o c u s e s t h e j u r o r s on U e i r
The Preparation and Trial of an Obscenity Case
74
r e a c t i o n s t o what t h e e v i d e n c e may be, i n s t e a d
o f p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t i n g t h e m t o place aside
t h e i r own f e e l i n g s and a p p l y t h e "average per-
son" and "community s t a n d a r d s " c o n c e p t s .
T h i s i s s u e w a s s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed b y
t h e F o u r t h C i r c u i t Court o f A p p e a l s i n t h e
r e c e n t case o f United S t a t e s v . G u q J & . L u
F . 2 d 451 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) .
In G u g l k h u
I
,
I
,
819
the
d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d f o r v i o l a t i o n s of fede r a l o b s c e n i t y l a w s , a r i s i n g from t h e i n t e r -
s t a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f f i l m s d e p i c t i n g bestiality.
During v o i r
dire,
t h e d e f e n d a n t re-
q u e s t e d many q u e s t i o n s t o t h e j u r o r s " a b o u t
t h e i r p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s p e c i f i c sex-
u a l practices."
The F o u r t h C i r c u i t u p h e l d t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o a s k these ques-
t i o n s , s ta ti n g :
W e f i n d nothing inherently u n f a i r i n
t h e v o i r d i r e . The j u r o r s w e r e
asked a g r e a t many q u e s t i o n s de-
signed t o disclose their associat i o n s and g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e s . T h e
d e c l i n a t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t judge t o
ask t h e j u r o r s about t h e i r Personal
r e a c t i o n s to s p e c l f l e d s e x a c t s w a s
w i t h i n t h e cou r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n .
I
,
819 F . 2 d a t 456 (emphasis added).
Such ques-
---
4/ Jury Selection and Voir Dire
75
t i o n s d u r i n g voir
caire would a l s o be c o n t r a r y
t o t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s mandate t h a t t h e mate-
r i a l be judged by t h e "average p e r s o n " a p p l y i n g "contemporary community s t a n d a r d s " r a t h e r
than by a p a r t i c u l a r l y s u s c e p t i b l e o r s e n s i t i v e person
one.
-- o r i n d e e d a t o t a l l y i n s e n s i t i v e
Miller v . C a l i f o r n i a , 413 U . S .
a t 33.
A Delaware o b s c e n i t y case i s i n s t r u c t i v e
and s q u a r e l y on p o i n t .
In m r j s EnterDyises.
Lnc. v . S t a t e , 408 A.2d 284 ( D e l . 1 9 7 9 ) , t h e
d e f e n d a n t a t t r i a l had numerous v o i r dire
q u e s t i o n s rejected.
I n affirming t h e convic-
t i o n , t h e Delaware Supreme Court h e l d t h a t t h e
purpose of v o i r d i r e i s t o determine whether a
p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r i s q u a l i f i e d and a b l e t o
r e n d e r an i m p a r t i a l verdict.
A n y q u e s t i o n s g o i n g beyond t h i s
p u r p o s e are i r r e l e v a n t and are
properly excluded. A f t e r reviewing
t h e r e c o r d , w e are o f t h e o p i n i o n
t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d q u e s t i o n s , which
w e r e r e f u s e d , w e r e an attempt t o
a s c e r t a i n t h e a d v a n c e r e a c t i o n s of
t h e i' u r o r s t o t he issues a t t r i a l
a n d were DroDerlv exc l u d e d from t h e
atiqn.
Ld., 286 (emphasis
added).
S i m i l a r l y , see
S t a t e v. Bracey , 277 S . E . 2 d 390, 39.5 ( N . C .
VI
Y
'd
r-
(D
3
rt
Lc
b-
%a
3
(D
0
Y
Y
(D
b-
a
I-
:
c
Lc
5
rt
Y
I
rt
P-
c
VI
rt
0
3
(D
Y
P,
Lc
(D
r
rt
3
P,
rt
rt
3
O
P-
VI
VI
(D
Y
3
P-
VI
Y
(D
0
C
U.
P
rt
Y
P,
(D
P
tf
9,
~
c
3
rt
9
5-
2
cq
(D
VI
.
P,
cl
(D
v
3
rt
0
5cq
rt
rt
P-
VI
9
4
Y
0
VI
Y
0
Y
U.
~
::
(D
cl
VI
b-
0
cq
3
P-
3
P-
3
(D
%
f-t
3
P-
P
PI
P-
Y
(D
rt
P,
9
(D
rt
3
0
rt
VI
3
P0
rt
P
I
PI
cl
(D
Y
E
Lc
$
'd
a
I-
5
c
VI
f-t
P-
rt
3
P,
rt
Lc
Y
c
U-
(D
rt
3
2
0
5Y
P,
I
rVI
9
VI
3
PO
rt
VI
(D
2
cl
3
c
m
Lc
VI
I
:
9,
I-
Y
c
(D
(D
VI
5-
VI
VI
VI
v
r-
i-t
$?
Y
3
P-
r
!-
-I
zP-
(D
cl
%
3
cP-
(D
(D
rt
3
0
Y
rt
3
(D
3
c
a
cq
(D
U.
(D
c)
0
Y
'd
Y
'd
P,
n,
0
Y
cq
F
!I-
P,
cl
VI
3
O
P-
rt
VI
(D
2
E
1-
(D
VI
9,
cl
(D
rt
3
0
Y
VI
cl
rt
Y
P,
2
rt
0
rt
z
P,
P
(D
rt
3
Lc
P
P,
'd
'd
Lc
P
2Y
0
Y
'd
3
P,
cl
v
cl
P-
*3
Y
Lc
C
U.
P,
cl
rt
(D
!-
(D
VI
0
rt
(D
b-
5
a
0
3
VI
E
E-
O
Y
I-
2P,
(D
rt
z
P-
rt
cP
(D
3
rt
3
O
.
P-
VI
z
3
cl
0
cl
3
H
Y
v
-
P,
P
0
rt
rt
3
P,
c
VI
2
(D
c)
9
P,
3
Y
0
n,
Y
'd
8
Y
(D
'd
0
Y
'd
Y
P-
(D
3
ct
O
rt
0
a
P,
Y
(D
cq
Y
v
I:
Prt
rt
Y
r:
0
0
(D
3
rt
Lc
0
rt
Y
0
P.
Y
'd
VI
(r,
P-
rt
VI
P-
r
~
0
(D
0
3
z
Y
4
0
Y
(D
w
tr
b-
(D
PO
rt
3
3
0
PI
0
(D
a
P,
0
rt
rt
P-
3
0
0
rt
a
3
+I
(D
-
a
P
0
C
I
:
3
PO
rt
VI
(D
P
2
P,
P-
3
cl
VI
rt
cl
c
Y
rt
5VI
3
P,
Y
r
Lc
z
0
P,
P
(D
rt
3
0
a
(D
rt
2
cl
rt
5VI
3
3
3
a
P,
[I)
(D
VI
VI
(D
I
:
Prt
(D
rt
3
3
Y
0
4
rt
P-
a
P,
Y
3
(D
(D
(D
3
P,
VI
(D
3
(D
0
Y
n,
(D
b-
b-
VI
(D
v
(D
Y
0
z
-
r
(D
3
cl
(D
a
cP-
(D
0
rt
0
rt
a
Y
P,
14
(D
Y
5-
3
0
Y
0
r:
Y
U-
%
rt
rt
P-
3
3
0
cl
0
rt
a
(D
3
14
P-
VI
%
(D
3
3
Y
(D
'd
Y
0
'd
P-
(D
P,
Y
VI
PO
rt
VI
c(D
c4
!-
P,
rt
(D
3
rt
0
'd
3
Lc
h
w
P
W
CD
P
-
- L-
Y
rt
r-
P,
(D
Lc
rt
3
(D
VI
c
P,
cl
(D
b-
P-
~
3VI
a
(D
X
P-
Y
P,
0
0
-
4/Jury Selection and Voir Dire
77
defense counsel's description of the materials.
c
Finally, such questions are improper
because they are an attempt to discover the
jurors' reactions to what the evidence may be,
in advance of the trial and before being properly instructed on the applicable law.
For
all of the above reasons, this Motion should
be granted as to hypothetical questions and
those calling for a prejudgment of the evidence.
C.
--
UNDULY INTRUSIVE OUESTIONS CONCERNING
JURORS' RELIGIOUS. POLITICAL. EDUCA-
As stated by the Supreme Court in Smith v,
United States, 431 U . S .
291 (1977),
voir dire
inquiries should have the purpose of eliciting
"useful information about the jurors' qualifications to apply contemporary community standards in an objective way."
431 U.S. at 308.
The "information" can be obtained by discovering the following from the prospective jurors:
(1) length of residence in the community; ( 2 )
extent of community involvement; and (3) affiliation with organizations having an inter-
Hl
HI
Y
c01
VI
0)
P,
3
d
M
0
O
r-
rt
rt
Y
(D
r:
VI
M
(D
P-
I-
K
0
9
I
(D
2
cn
Y
0
cY
U.
v
(D
rt
Y
I-
v
E
rt
d
0
rt
cn
P,
-
(D
I 4
(D
3
01
0
rt
a
0)
(D
2
(D
Y
rt
Y
2
c)
I-
P,
r-
Y
rr
(D
v
c3
w
w
03
I
O
w
P
rt
P,
.p
P-
rt
cn
(D
2
(D
Y
a
3
P,
P,
I-
.
c)
rrr
r-
I-
'bo
I-
P,
.
3
O
P-
rr-
rt
r:
0
v)
x
P,
P,
rt
c)
v
3
0
c,
rt
c)
P-
Y
rt
cn
P-
U
(D
v
rt
rt
P,
v
rt
a
P
(D
v
rt
0
0
C
1
9
Pcq
3
rt
v
El
(D
P-
r-
3
Y
0)
-
Y
0
C
U.
(D
v
M
rt
0
cn
(D
cn
P,
P-
w
0
Y
v
rt
0
a
P,
cn
C
0
19
r-
(D
P
w
01
'dcno
3
19
P-
3
Y
(D
c)
3
c)
0
EE
1
0
cn
3
O
.
r-
2
3
rt
P,
r-
Y
(D
c)
x
v)
P,
0
ri
-
I-
P,
v)
(D
3
Y
0
Y
Y
(D
a
(D
L-
P,
I-
c)
Y
(D
0
rt
r-
rt
'd
Y
(D
v
rt
(D
Y
&
(D
Y
rp
4
u)
P
h
rp
0
(D
v)
-
Y
rr
c
0
0
I-'
o,
P-
Y
rt
(D
rr
v
cn
rt
F
(D
2
IP-
Y
(D
P-
.
vl
(D
P,
v)
0
C
3
c
3
P-
5
X
P-
KY
I
3
(D
tj
v1
c)
0
M
3
0
L
a
0
*
cn
3
0
r-
rt
P,
O
M
HI
P,
a
3
P,
M
cn
P-
rt
r-
I-
(D
PP
P-
111
(D
2
(D
v
3
rt
0
d
cn
(D
cP-
d
3
rt
(D
!I E
ir
rt
c)
(D
P,
r t H l
' C H I
cn
Y
0
Y
c
U.
(D
c
r-
rt
c)
(D
7Y
cn
Y
0
'd
cn
x
P,
0
rt
(D
rt
P,
r-
Y
T!
0
Y
'd
e
(D
tj
a
r
z
0
C
P-
rt
Y
.
(D
c
(D
d
X
0
3
O
P-
P,
rt
2
cl
M
(D
0
I-'
(D
c
(D
I-
5a
Y
r-
3
cn
s
.
rt
r-
P,
N
r-
P,
19
Y
0
P
P,
r)
0
cn
a
3
0,
>
c)
2P-
c)
cn
.
0
rc:
19
r-
I-
0
P,
v
P-
I-'
7Y
n,
(D
v
K
a
I-
r:
d
0
P-
rt
.
Y
Lc
r-
8
cn
rt
Hl
0
rt
P,
Y
'd
0
rr
I-
;c
'd
r-
v
Y
VI
(D
8
9
.
3
0
r-
C
'd
PI
rt
n
c)
0
cn
Y
Y
0
C
U.
v
(D
rt
*
5
0
~
v
P
cn
03
0
rt
w
P,
cn
C
P
rp
w
(D
v)
0
P,
(D
rt
5
rt
v)
(D
-
-4/ Jury Selection and Voir Dire
79
The l e s s o n from t h e above a u t h o r i t y c l e a r l y
must be, t h a t w h i l e i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o
e l i c i t useful information about t h e j u r o r s '
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o a p p l y t h e l a w , it i s n o t
a p p r o p r i a t e t o a s k t h e j u r o r s how t h e y might
" p r e j u d g e " t h e case based on these q u a l i f i c a tions.
Again, and a s d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y ,
these q u e s t i o n s i m p r o p e r l y f o c u s t h e j u r o r s '
a t t e n t i o n on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f
their b e l i e f s
t o a h y p o t h e t i c a l case, i n s t e a d o f on t h e app l i c a t i o n o f "community s t a n d a r d s " t o t h e case
a f t e r it has been p r e s e n t e d .
D.
EMBARRASSING OR HUM I L I AT ING O
U
- E
Q u e s t i o n s which embarrass and h u m i l i a t e
p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s are i m p r o p e r .
Such ques-
t i o n s are d e s i g n e d t o o f f e n d c e r t a i n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s c a u s i n g them t o believe t h e y cann o t be f a i r .
For i n s t a n c e , t h e following t y p e
o f q u e s t i o n s are improper:
(1) Q u e s t i o n s r e q u e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n con-
cerning prospective j u r o r s ' "personal" sexual
p r e f e r e n c e and a t t i t u d e , which c o u l d p r o v e
embarrassing t o j u r o r s .
Ptil
Lc
5w
(D
P-
3
M
v)
'd
rt
r
cI
rt
HI
Y
c)
rt
P
rt
(D
P
Lc
Y
c
U.
c
n,
P-
rt
0
(D
'd
v)
0
Y
v
(D
(D
(D
v)
0
G
(D
b-
0
cP-
v)
P-
ct
P-
rt
P,
Ef
ct
(D
2-
rt
3
v)
r-
(D
v)
?-
rt
U.
(D
b;
c
(D
v)
Y
P,
0
?-
rt
5a
M
0
rt
3
(D
El
rt
Y
0
r-
?-
el
(D
c
P-
0,
3
(D
M
M
0
Lc
P
rt
G-
M
(D
rt
rt
O
b-
P
rt
O
(D
P-
rt
3
Lc
Lc
(D
'd
rt
3
0
Y
3
rt
P-
v)
0)
Y
P-
P,
I
n
(D
c)
Y
0
v)
v)
P,
Y
Y
0
v)
Lc
(D
3
0
rt
rt
PI
Ef
rt
d
P,
-
P
P,
Y
0
Y
P
P
(D
P,
P,
El
rt
P,
rt
b-
0
a
r
v)
Y
0
Y
C
U-
H
3
r
M
0
3
rt
(D
rt
d
P,
I
I
rt
PJ
(D
1-3
Ef
v)
P-
?-
rt
(D
rt
P
r
0
3
0
rn
Y
0
VI
0
Y
r-
zu
M
P,
3.
z
P,
rt
rt
n,
Lc
P
P
P,
O
P
0
a
3
P,
a
(D
c
Lc
P,
z
Y
(D
w
0
Y
'd
El
3
r-
P,
Lc
P
v)
c
O
P-
Lc
P
a
3
P-
M
Ft'
tt
c
v)
P-
rt
n,
(D
?-
i-t
0
2
(D
tt
ct
-
v)
0)
(D
3
2(D
3
v)
tt
c
(D
P-
01
(D
-
(D
v)
c)
?-
rt
b-
O
(D
i t
Y
3
rt
0
3
(D
r
M
0
3
iD
Lc
P-
M
0
P-
v)
zu
c)
c)
0
01
Y
(D
3
Y
0
rt
rt
P,
n,
Lc
Pv)
rt
P,
v)
0
rt
(D
rt
P,
cn
rt
(D
P
rt
Y
M
0
(D
P
CT
VI
01
P-
0
P
P
zP-
P-
rt
.
Y
Lc
c
U.
v
(D
rt
3
n,
0
Y
a
(D
01
c
cl
X
n,
(D
b-
0
rt
cn
Y
(D
rt
I
2
rt
PJ
rrt
c)
P-
P
'd
X
(D
Lc
P
P,
P
c
X
iD
a
P
c
0
c)
0
5
v)
tt
0
c
c)
P,
M
(D
P
a
rt
5
(D
cq
Y
P,
c
(D
PI
.
I
(D
rt
P
rt
P,
Ef
rt
v)
P-
rt
v)
(D
P
H
01
3
PO
rt
h
r-
rt
Lc
Y
0
x
n
P-
P
(D
v)
3
c
0
c)
d
Ef
?-
(D
rt
M
0
s
a
0
(D
v)
(D
ID
v,
P,
0
.c"
E!.
n,
n
0v,
0
4/ Jury Selection and Voir Dire
81
I1
ALLEGED COMPARABLE MATERIAL
T h i s subject h a s been addressed a t l e n g t h
.
i n P l a i n t i f f ' s T r i a l B r i e f , pp.
Simply
put, evidence t h a t other sexually explicit
materials are a v a i l a b l e f o r s a l e i n t h e commu-
Hamlina
n i t y i s n o t admissible.
States., 418 U . S .
TJ.
United
87, 125-26 (1974);
130 U a r k e t S t r e e t G i f t
&
N o v e l t -v . E t c . ,
440
A.2d 517, 521 ( P a . S u p e r . 1982); U n i t e d S t a t e s
v . Prvba, 678 F.Supp.
1225 (E.D.Va.
1988)
( s l i p op. a t t a c h e d t o T r i a l B r i e f ) .
I11
USE OF ALLEGED EXPERTS AND PUBLIC OPINION
POLLS
T h i s s u b j e c t h a s been a d d r e s s e d a t l e n g t h
i n P l a i n t i f f ' s T r i a l B r i e f , pp.
.
No
expert testimony i s r e q u i r e d i n obscenity
cases.
U.S.
-1s
A d u l t T h e a t r e v . S l a t o n , 413
49, 56 (1973); Corn. v. Rocrers, 327 A.2d
118, 121 ( P a . 1974).
More i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e
v e r y u s e o f expert t e s t i m o n y b y e i t h e r side i n
obscenity l i t i g a t i o n i s disapproved.
Paris
The Preparation and Trial of an Obscenity Case
82
Wt Theatre, 413 U . S .
a t 56 n . 6 ("'expert
w i t n e s s ' practices employed i n these cases
have o f t e n made a mockery o u t o f t h e o t h e r w i s e
s o u n d c o n c e p t of expert t e s t i m o n y
s t a t e d , hardcore p o r n o g r a p h y
does speak f o r i t s e l f " ) .
. . .
. . .
Simply
can and
The best recent d i s -
c u s s i o n of t h i s i s s u e i s f o u n d i n United
S t a t e s v . P r y b a , 678 F.Supp.
1225 (E.D.Va.
1 9 8 8 ) ( s l i p op. a t t a c h e d t o T r i a l B r i e f ) .
In
P r y b a , t h e c o u r t e x c l u d e d d e f e n s e " e x p e r t s " on
v a r i o u s o b s c e n i t y e l e m e n t s as w e l l as a so-
called p o l l survey.
Similarly,
Maves, 359 S.E.2d 30, 35-37
see S t a t e
(N.C.Ct.App.
1 9 8 7 ) ; A l b r i g h t v. S t a t e, 5 0 1 N.E.2d
94
(1nd.Ct.App.
N.E.2d
V,
488,
492-
1 9 8 6 ) ; R i c h a r d s v. St a t e , 461
744, 748 (1nd.Ct.App.
1 9 8 4 ) ; F l v n t v.
I
S t a t e , 264 S.E.2d 669,
672 ( G a . C t . A p p .
c e r t . denied, 449 U . S .
888 ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
19801,
Finally,
as t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d :
"To
s a y t h e j u r y needed e x p e r t h e l p t o decide i f
I
t h i s m a t e r i a l i s 'obscene' borders on t h e
r i d i c u l o u s " ) ; Com. v. Rocrers , 327 A.2d 1 1 8 ,
1 2 1 ( P a . 1 9 7 4 ) ; Corn. v . H u l e h a n , 487 A.2d 980,
(D
3
0
I
C
Y
'd
Y
0
(D
crt
b-
P-
Y
rt
P01
a
0
rt
5
cq
P-
Y
r
s-
(D
Y
(D
v
rt
Y
.
c
0
*
(D
0
LC
(D
(D
Y
(D
9
-
(D
rt
rt
7
P,
r
rt
P,
Y
(D
P
cl
cl
Y
?f
3
P,
rt
cY
0
c,
(D
9
Y
VI
G
'd
(D
rt
P,
(D
a
a,
9
2-
(D
(D
rt
b-
rt
P,
P
(D
3
2
Y
0
Y
P,
cl
cl
0
8
v
P-
v)
.
v
W
m
W
P
h
4
cn
Cn
CI)
C
W
A
w
W
w
P
VI
C
..
w
v
W
4
P
h
cn
C
n
4
P
w
UI
A
.
.
b
W
VI
w
C
b
P
.
1
I
Y
i
P-
Y
I
VI
P-
a
0
M
a
s-
Y
cl
(D
r
rt
0
P
'd
rt
P,
P-
(D
v)
(D
Y
3
(D
6?M
P,
rt
3
0
v)
P-
ct
cn
P
2
P,
rt
3
P,
(D
3
(D
0
v)
6
0
5cq
bC
rt
P-
Y
rt
5
u2
3
rt
(D
3
v1
0
o
0
rt
a
(D
u
crt
P-
Y
ct
01
P-
a
v)
P-
P
P,
Y
P-
El
I
b-
0
E
'c
(D
cq
(D
t-
P
Pl
(D
r
rt
rt
P,
3
ct
ct
M
P,
rl
(D
D-
rt
v)
(D
ca
P
P,
5
c4
;
rt
(D
3
(D
o
v)
3
(D
%
t-
v
I
HI
0
(D
3
rt
t-
C
cn
Y
a
(D
o,
P-
t-
cn
rt
P,
b-
(D
(D
3
rt
rt
o
a
P-
P,
Y
3
rt
0
cl
(D
0
3
0
0
rt
'c
t-
3
0
P
P,
P-
Y
(D
ct
P,
9
a
P
0
Y
m
0
a
(D
rt
'c
(D
Y
Y
i3
Y
r
?
Y
0
cc
P
3
(D
Y
a
a
P-
C
t-
z
0
rt
rt
'c
Y
c
U-
(D
rt
M
0
(D
0
3
v)
(D
a
If?
'd
3
P-
(D
v)
v)
(D
El
3
3
9
3
3
3
(D
3
rt
3
P-
rt
(D
rl
'c
P,
(D
x
9
P,
rt
0
'c
P,
v)
(D
(D
%
M
(D
1
Y
c
(D
P-
P
i?
0
rt
rt
Lf
Q
P-
Y
I2
o,
P-
(D
Y
(D
Lf
rt
h
v
P
4
W
P
h
Q
cn
I
w
cn
w
.
P
%
P-
Y
c
v)
(D
r
t
P,
cn
a
(D
rt
r-
C
3
Y
F
(D
3
(D
tr
P-
v)
Y
0
(D
v)
Y
Y
P-
P,
0
3
0
0
(D
v)
.
G
0
rt
P-
Y
0
c
v)
(D
P,
rt
cn
(D
rt
C
5
r-
0
rt
rt
v
Q
r-
Y
0
3
VI
r-
(D
Y
(D
rt
D-
b-
Y
0
10
0
cc
Y
(D
c
P
P-
e
0
Y
H,
(D
-
CD
Y
cl
2
cl
(D
rt
P,
rt
P
Q
rt
P,
cn
C
w
Q
P
(D
Lf
0
3
rt
0
rt
P
v)
Y
PP,
(D
5rt
(D
rt
P,
v
2
14
v
rt
P-
6
0
x
a
3
(D
rt
(D
0
3
rt
Pv)
rt
Y
e
0
0
(D
rt
3
(D
Y
a
v)
(D
(D
0
.
3
9
a
tJ-
P
3
0
0
v)
F
cn
N
P
rt
P,
cn
C
w
&
P
'd
v)
a
tJ-
rt
0
3
(D
P,
Y
(D
-
4
N
P
rt
P,
v,
C
Lf
rt
grt
rt
a
P
v
(D
Y
P
(D
Y
P,
t!
v)
v)
P,
rt
Y
G
0
0
rt
-
01
Y
(D
Lf
0
rt
0
rt
P-
rt
(D
c
P-
lQ
Y
0
P
P
(D
VI
(D
5
E0
0
v)
c
(D
P,
Lf
0
P-
Y
Y
7
rt
9
P-
6
(D
c
P-
rt
P,
P
(D
c)
0
P,
0
rt
(D
v)
Y
c
(D
P-
rt
cq
0
3
v)
(D
a
0
(D
3
rj
0
.
H
5
I
(D
v)
2
Lf
Y
e
0
cc
0
rt
a
(D
bG
rt
P-
Y
tn
rt
a
P-
P?I
c
(D
3
P,
0
rt
3
c
(D
(D
v)
0
'd
0
rt
i7
Q
P-
v)
P
(D
Y
r
I
0
0
N
10
P
c
v)
(D
aJ
- .
Y
rt
3
P,
rt
rt
P
a
(D
v
rt
Y
e
0
0
g
rt
cn
(D
v
w
rt
P-
3
C
4
W
P
h
3
x
0
Y
(D
cl
P,
P
'd
rt
(D
iY!
cl
P
P-
&
'd
(D
v
rt
5-
Y
rt
P-
3
(D
cl
v)
b-
0
(D
v)
P,
cl
4/Jury Selection and Voir Dire
85
obscene material for use in the home).
VI
FIRST AMENDMENT
"This much has been categorically settled
by the court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment."
California, 413 U . S .
Miller v.
15, 2 3 (1973); and see
Com. v. B o d , 504 A.2d 869, 875 (Pa.Super.
1986).
VI I
SCIENTER
This subject has been addressed at length
in Plaintiff's Trial Brief, pp.
.
The
U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is sufficient if defendant knew the nature and character of the material.
His lack of knowledge of
obscenity law or that the material was obscene
is no defense.
W l i n g v. United States, 418
U.S.
87, 123 (1974); American Booksellers A s -
SOC.
v. Rendell, 481 A.2d 919, 939 (Pa.Super.
1984); and see Com. v. Croll, 480 A.2d 266,
271 (Pa.Super. 1984).
Respectfully submitted,