Porn Distributors Back in Court
Porn distributors Robert Zicari and Janet Romano thought they had finally reached an end to their long legal battle when Pittsburgh U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster dismissed a 10-count criminal indictment charging the couple with violating federal obscenity laws, ruling the laws unconstitutional. However, a three-judge panel of the...
January 31, 2006 at 07:00 PM
2 minute read
Porn distributors Robert Zicari and Janet Romano thought they had finally reached an end to their long legal battle when Pittsburgh U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster dismissed a 10-count criminal indictment charging the couple with violating federal obscenity laws, ruling the laws unconstitutional.
However, a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision in U.S. v. Extreme Associates Inc. on Dec. 12, 2005, holding that the district court had incorrectly interpreted Supreme Court precedents.
Prosecutors charged the California owners of Extreme Associates in August 2003 for distributing pornographic tapes that depicted rape and murder. In his ruling, Lancaster cited Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck Texas anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. The 3rd Circuit found Lawrence unrelated to obscenity laws and reinstated the indictment.
“Because we conclude that the District Court improperly set aside applicable Supreme Court precedent which has repeatedly upheld federal statues regulating the distribution of obscenity ?? 1/2 we will reverse,” the 3rd Circuit ruling stated.
Porn distributors Robert Zicari and Janet Romano thought they had finally reached an end to their long legal battle when Pittsburgh U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster dismissed a 10-count criminal indictment charging the couple with violating federal obscenity laws, ruling the laws unconstitutional.
However, a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision in U.S. v. Extreme Associates Inc. on Dec. 12, 2005, holding that the district court had incorrectly interpreted Supreme Court precedents.
Prosecutors charged the California owners of Extreme Associates in August 2003 for distributing pornographic tapes that depicted rape and murder. In his ruling, Lancaster cited Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck Texas anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. The 3rd Circuit found Lawrence unrelated to obscenity laws and reinstated the indictment.
“Because we conclude that the District Court improperly set aside applicable Supreme Court precedent which has repeatedly upheld federal statues regulating the distribution of obscenity ?? 1/2 we will reverse,” the 3rd Circuit ruling stated.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1City Bar Presents Thomas E. Dewey Awards to Outstanding NYC Prosecutors
- 2NC Solicitor General Park Withdraws His 4th Circuit Nomination
- 3Trump-Appointed Judge Presides Over NASCAR Antitrust Dispute Under Case Reassignment
- 4CFPB Orders Big Banks to Limit Overdraft Fees to $5. But Will Its Edict Stick?
- 5FIFA Faces Legal Challenge Over Winning Saudi World Cup Bid
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
