Odd and Interesting

The chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday suspended an obscenity trial over which he was presiding after a newspaper reported he had posted sexually explicit photos and videos on his own Web site.

[...]

He is presiding in the case against a porn movie distributor.

[...]

The defendant, Ira Isaacs, is accused of violating obscenity laws by selling movies depicting bestiality and extreme fetishes involving feces and urination.

[...]

Opening statements were under way Wednesday morning when the Los Angeles Times' Web site reported that Kozinski's personal site contained explicit material and that public access to it was blocked after he was interviewed about it Tuesday evening.

Kozinski, 57, told the Times he thought the material, which included a video of a man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal and a picture of nude women on all fours painted to look like cows, couldn't be seen by the public. The judge said he didn't believe any of the images were obscene, the Times reported.

[...]

"I think it's odd and interesting."

[...]

"I'm not going to say anything. The trial is ongoing," Judge Alex Kozinski said to a reporter as he left.

  Raw Story

That's the mantra of the Bush Administration.

I bet Ira Isaacs was feeling pretty good about his chances until the Times rained on the parade.

And once upon a time in this great country of ours, judges could count on cover.

The suspension of the trial came after jurors spent hours at the Pasadena offices of the 9th Circuit watching the video evidence in the obscenity case.

Well, thank goodness the Times didn’t report earlier, eh?

The Times reported that Kozinski said he must have accidentally uploaded the images to his server while trying to upload something else.

Uh-huh. Even though it "wasn't obscene," you understand. And his point was that it was supposed to be only on his personal computer, and not for public consumption. He had no intention of sharing it on the internet. It was meant just for his family. In fact, his son is trying to take the blame by saying he downloaded the images to the computer in the first place. All in the family smut.

It all reminds me of a legal pleading by defense attorneys I saw at one of the law firms I used to work for in San Francisco. The case was a dog attack.

1. Defendant doesn't own a dog.
2. If defendant does own a dog, it isn't dangerous.

3. If defendant owns a dog and it is dangerous, defendant didn't know nor should have known.