Last month the adult entertainment industry received a great victory and was able to takea great sigh of relief.  The case of the United States v. John Stagliano John Stagliano, Inc. and Evil Angel Productions, Inc. went to trial in the District of Columbia before U.S. District CourtJudge Richard J. Leon for charges that they had sent obscene material by common carrier acrossstate lines to the District of Columbia.       At the inception of this case, the case had all of the trapings of being a hallmark, if not alandmark decision, in obscenity prosecutions.  The case was brought by the Justice Department'sObscenity Prosecution Task Force Representing the defendants were represented by  some of ourpersonal friends, H. Louis Sirkin, Paul Camberia, Alan Gelbart and Robert Corn-Revere.     The reason why this case could have been, if not a landmark decision, but a hallmarkdecision, was depending on the verdict this case would have made a statement to either the pro-censorship people within the government or to First Amendment advocates outside of thegovernment.  The defendants were represented by fine attorneys defending the material andclaiming that they were not obscene in Washington, D.C.  Supposedly a crack government legalteam was on the other side.  The case was being watched by the adult entertainment industryalong with prosecutors nationwide.  A victory for the prosecutors would have sent a chillingeffect throughout the adult entertainment industry.  A finding that the material was not obscenewould have emboldened those of us who champion the First Amendment and believe in the rightof adults to view contents that they desire.     As any trial attorney will tell you, the future of a case can never be predicted and casestake on lives on their own.  During this trial, there were missteps by the United StatesGovernment such as a corrupted recording of a DVD that caused the Judge to throw out countsthat dealt with the "trailors" of the movies.  There also was a misspoken statement by one of thefederal agents while testifying, where the agent testified that the Judge had told him to review theevidence before he testified.  This made the Federal District Court Judge irrate and required anaffidavit to be signed by the U.S. Attorneys for the jury's review stating in fact their own witnesswas mistaken.       However, the biggest shock came when the defense argued their Rule 29 motions.  Theseare motions in Federal Court after the government rests its case, to have the charges thrown outbecause the government has not put on a prima facia case to the standard where a reasonablejuror could come back and find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  These motions are seldomgranted but to everyone's surprise Judge Leon in fact granted the Defendant's motions and threwout all of the charg... [More]