Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the jury with explicit details of the contents of the video that the jury could use to assess the film's appeal to children's prurient interests, its offensiveness to community standards about what is appropriate for children and its lack of other value for 12- to 14-year-olds. The jury was able to make its own decision as to the credibility of the witnesses. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d at 506. ¶ 24. The United States Supreme Court, federal courts, and Wisconsin courts are uniform in concluding that questions of whether material appeals to prurient interests, satisfies community standards for potentially obscene material or has literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value may be appropriately decided by a jury. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 56 (1973) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Wild, 422 F.2d 34 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in an obscenity case it was not error to fail to require expert affirmative evidence that the materials were obscene (B) holding that disclosure of grand jury materials to parole commission was harmless error (C) recognizing that the need for the expert was so great that the decision to preclude the expert effectively amounted to dismissal of case (D) holding that expert testimony is unnecessary where the case is not a case in which lay jurors would be unable to grasp the issues without expert assistance (E) holding that using the opinions of an expert that were not testified to during trial which were irrelevant and solely used to destroy the credibility of the expert was not admissible
Output (English): holding that using the opinions of an expert that were not testified to during trial which were irrelevant and solely used to destroy the credibility of the expert was not admissible