IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) File No. xxxxxxxxxxx
)
v. ) MOTION FOR ATTORNEY
) CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE ON
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ) SPECIFIC TOPICS AND
SLAVE & MASTER VIDEO, INC., ) INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
ENTERTAINMENT & AMUSEMENT, INC. ) OF LAW
)
________________________________)
Defendants xxxxxxxxxxxx, ENTERTAINMENT AND AMUSEMENT, INC., and SLAVE AND MASTER VIDEO, INC., through undersigned counsel respectfully move this Court pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for an order allowing defendants' attorneys and the attorney for the government to conduct the examination of prospective jurors on specific topics. In support of this motion, defendants show this Court as follows:
1. As noted in defendants' Motion for Specialized Jury Selection Procedures, the defendants in this case have been indicted for distributing allegedly obscene films that contain graphic depictions of acts that are qualitatively different from those normally associated with sexually explicit films.
2. Defendants' counsel and counsel for the government are in agreement that specialized procedures for selecting a jury may be necessary in this case, given the nature of the material, and have further agreed to try to devise a proposed plan for the Court's consideration that will be efficient, sensitive to the feelings of the prospective jurors, and fair to both sides. Defendants have therefore requested, as part of their Motion for Specialized Jury Selection Procedures, that a pretrial conference be held one month before trial to address the jury selection problems inherent in this case.
3. Under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court may permit counsel for the parties to conduct the examination of prospective jurors. Counsel has been informed that it is generally this Court's practice to allow attorneys to question prospective jurors, subject to the Court's discretion and control.
4. Attached as Exhibit A to this motion is an affidavit filed by a psychologist in another case in support of a request for attorney-conducted voir dire. Although submitted in another case, the points made in the affidavit apply fully in this case, and shed substantial light on the need for individual, attorney-conducted voir dire on subjects such as sexually explicit films, homosexuality, and other related, highly emotional and personal issues.
5. A number of courts have recognized that, at least in certain types of cases, attorney conducted voir dire may be necessary if a truly fair and impartial jury is to be selected. See, e.g., United States v. Ible, 630 F.2d 389, 395 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Corey, 625 F.2d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 1980).
6. In light of defendants' request for a pretrial conference on the jury selection problems inherent in this case, and of the attempt by counsel for both sides to propose a jury selection plan for the Court's consideration, defendants' respectfully suggest that the Court defer ruling on this motion until such time as all issues related to jury selection are heard by this Court.
Wherefore, defendants respectfully request that this Court allow attorney-conducted voir dire on specific issues in the cases.
This the 2nd day of January, 1989.
CARBONARO AND CARBONARO
79 West Monroe Street
Suite 519
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 236-4722
By _________________________________
Louis Carbonaro
Attorneys for Defendants
RUDOLF & MAHER, P.A.
312 West Franklin Street
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516
(919) 967-4900
Of Counsel for purposes of
motions only pursuant to Local
Rule 1(f)(1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the undersigned has this date served this document in the above-captioned action upon all other parties to this cause by depositing a copy hereof, postage prepaid, in the United States Mail, properly addressed to the attorney for each party.
This the 3rd day of January, 1989.
_________________________________
RUDOLF & MAHER, P.A.
C:\wwwfpd\attvoir1.wpd