 |
A federal appeals court judge on Friday stepped down from a high-profile obscenity trial in Los Angeles, three days after acknowledging that he had posted sexually explicit material on a publicly accessible personal website…
On Wednesday, Kozinski suspended the trial of Hollywood filmmaker Ira Isaacs to allow the prosecutor to explore what he saw as “a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a . . . sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here.”
Isaacs, the defendant, said he was disappointed Kozinski was no longer the judge. “I thought he was a fair judge,” he said. “I feel terrible that my trial caused this information to come out.”He added, though, that it was somehow fitting for the trial, which he predicted would be a spectacle from the start. Isaacs planned to argue that his hard-core videos depicting acts of bestiality and defecation were works of art and therefore not legally obscene. Jurors spent several hours Wednesday watching the videos before the trial was interrupted. “This whole trial is one big piece of performance art,” Isaacs said. “I just can’t imagine what’s going to happen next.”
Legal experts who had called on Kozinski to recuse himself from the Isaacs case said it wasn’t necessarily a problem that the judge had collected sexually explicit material but that he was reckless in allowing it to be discovered.
Sex in a closet is appropriate and ethical for lawyers. Doesn’t sound like freedom to me.
Thanks, K B
Americas problems with sex continue.
What introduces more bias into a judge? One that views sexually explicit material, or one that does not? Which one is more rational? Which one can apply the law more consistently with what was intended?
The article doesn’t provide enough facts to further opine on this particular case. I only presume the judge removed himself more from a free floating sense of guilt rather than an honest assessment of the questions I pose.
Guys, RTFA !
This is payback he’s getting. His son setup a home server, so that they could share their family & friends their home videos / hi-res pictures.
Some of the “adult” content is directly available over YouTube and is considered humor.
Similar to when you get an email from someone with a Powerpoint PPS or attached Jpg, that was saved on the home server.
This judge is being “killed” just because people (ie bad reporting) take things out of context, manipulate the headline to get readers.
We need links to “correct” articles, and how there’s a single idiot reporter “out to get him” on a personal vendetta.
This: hard-core videos depicting acts of bestiality and defecation was debunked elsewhere, just a YouTube “funny” video, with no substance.
#3. “This: hard-core videos depicting acts of bestiality and defecation was debunked elsewhere, just a YouTube “funny” video, with no substance.”
That was my impression also. The only thing he may be guilty of, (being technically competent), was a technical gaffe.
Good call #3.
What man doesn’t watch porn?
#3 is right. This is essentially a smear job done by a lawyer who was ruled against by said judge in the past.
My problem with this is that if you have to recuse yourself because you are ok with porn aren’t we going to by definition end up with a judge ‘not’ ok with it? Seems that creates an institutional bias on its own.
Disturbing.