Opinion ID: 1988243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Comparable Videos

Text: ¶ 86. Crossroads also appeals the circuit court's decision finding inadmissible evidence of videos Crossroads alleged were comparable to Anal Vision No. 5. Crossroads' proffer consisted of two categories of videos: first, two sexually explicit videos which in previous litigation involving the Kenosha ordinance, the videos were found to be non-obscene by a jury. Second, six sexually explicit videos purchased or rented in Kenosha County and which Crossroads alleged were comparable to Anal Vision No. 5. [14] ¶ 87. The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in disallowing videotapes from either grouping. If consistency in jury verdicts as to the obscenity vel non of identical materials is not constitutionally required, Miller v. California , [], the same is true a fortiori of verdicts as to separate materials, regardless of their similarities. Hamling, 418 U.S. at 101. The presentation of the two videos which were found not to be obscene in prior jury trials could only work to confuse this jury. ¶ 88. Further, as to the six comparable videos, it is axiomatic that community tolerance or availability does not equate with acceptability or non-obscenity. See Pryba, 678 F. Supp. at 1230. The mere availability of the material is not indicative of community standards. All these video tapes could be obscene, just as the jury found that Anal Vision No. 5 was. ¶ 89. Finally, as the circuit court found, the video tapes here which were offered as evidence were not comparable to Anal Vision No. 5. The video tape itself is the best evidence of its obscenity, Paris Adult Theatre I, 413 U.S. at 56, and the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in declining to allow the other tapes as evidence of community standards. By the Court. The judgment of the Kenosha County Circuit Court is affirmed.