00:00:30.840 - 00:00:53.220

Yeah we're going to try it as fast as we can and as sterile lee as we can with good operating procedure. It's I think it's particularly a law case and an interesting law case Mr Bell. I uh if you win this case, do you feel that

00:00:53.220 - 00:01:13.370

this will automatically cause the charges against the others to be dropped? Those that have not been set for trial? Not Necessarily after this case is one. Uh The other cases are individuals were going to ask the jury not to uh consider this as an example for

00:01:13.370 - 00:01:29.650

anything else because obscenity has to be taken in context. What uh might be obscene, what might be bad in one place uh Isn't in another. I think in the context of all investors virginian when he said when you call me that smile you can say it

00:01:29.650 - 00:01:48.250

to some person in some circumstances you can't do to someone else. So I wouldn't think that this would be controlling of of any other cases. Attorney Mr O'brien contends that obscenity is not involved in this case. Yes I I know he does and that's a very

00:01:48.250 - 00:02:05.510

interesting thing. I can't see what we're charged with here. And that's the problem of censorship if someone no matter how well motivated they are. And I I certainly feel that we've got a good police department, a good Mayor and certainly a good district attorney and incidentally

00:02:05.510 - 00:02:23.180

at good trial judge and a pleasure to try one before a judge that knows he's long like Judge Friedman, I can't see how were charged with anything else other than under the obscenity statutes that have been so thoroughly discussed by the Supreme Court there. We've got

00:02:23.180 - 00:02:36.540

some guide rails so I think we'd better wait and see what Judge Friedman says at the end of the case that were being really charged with because I don't think that we can be charged with anything else other than that hardcore pornography