quote: The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has learned that the U.S. Supreme Court denied Jesus Castillo’s petition for writ of certiorari, bringing his three-year quest for justice to a close. Castillo is presently serving a period of unsupervised probation.
The CBLDF has been providing counsel for Castillo since his arrest in 2000 when he was charged with two counts of obscenity for selling adult comic books to adults. The Fund’s lawyers persuaded the court to try the two counts separately and waged a fierce courtroom battle that included expert testimony from Scott McCloud and Professor Susan Napier. The State prosecutor did not offer contradictory testimony, but secured a guilty verdict with a closing argument stating, “I don’t care what type of evidence or what type of testimony is out there, use your rationality, use your common sense. Comic books, traditionally what we think of, are for kids. This is in a store directly across from an elementary school and it is put in a medium, in a forum, to directly appeal to kids. That is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen. … We’re here to get this off the shelf.” Castillo was found guilty and sentenced to 180 days in jail, a year probation, and a $4,000 fine.
quote: Interview with CBLDF Executive Director Charles Brownstein On the Denial of the Castillo Appeal
. . .
Was there a political motivation to this prosecution?
I do know that there was political motivation, according to our attorneys. Mary Poss was a city councilwoman who was behind the initial investigation of Keith's Comics, and at the time she was slated to be running for mayor pro tem of the Dallas City Council, and she was trying to push through a bill which would kind of re-draft the zoning standards for Dallas. So there was a political connection.
The timeline that I have begins in November of '99 when Stonewall Jackson Elementary, which is the school across the street, published a warning that reported that "offensive materials including videos and comics are available for viewing by minors at this location," when in fact Keith's Comics had three levels of racking. They had a general section which took up about 80%-90% of the store; they had an eighteen and over section that was cordoned off at the back of the store; and then the most explicit material was kept in a box behind the counter and only sold to adults with ID. On the strength of that particular elementary school article, a formal investigation was instigated by city council member Mary Poss, who was preparing for an election.
What are the lessons learned? Could this case have been won?
I think that the way this case shook down, the Fund did the best job that it could. What it ultimately came down to was the whim of a tired jury. The fund brought in three experts to testify on the merit of the medium, the merit of the work in question, and the community standards of Dallas while the state prosecutor brought in no experts and simply the arresting police officer. And that testimony took a full five days of court time, and then there was a recess for the weekend, and everyone came back on Monday for closing arguments. And when the closing arguments were given, we went first and reminded the jury that the work was not proven to be Constitutionally obscene; that we have expert testimony that was not contradicted that explained the literary, artistic, and cultural value of the work in question; and without conflicting testimony they had to side with the experts.
And when the prosecution went last, she entered prejudicial statements. She said, 'It doesn't matter what kind of experts or evidence you have, use your common sense. Comics are primarily what we think of as for kids, and they're putting this smut in the medium to appeal to our kids. It's being sold in a store right across the street from an elementary school, let's get it off the shelves.' Well, the judge had instructed all parties that the proximity of the store to the school was not relevant in this case. Everybody knew that, but the prosecutor introduced that statement in the closing arguments rather shrewdly, and I think distorted a bit of the jury's perceptions. So when they came out less than an hour later with a guilty verdict, it was, to my reading, a fairly knee-jerk emotional reaction. And once that occurred, the die was cast. So there was no legal error.
When we took this case to the appeals court, we came back with a split decision with two of the justices upholding the decision because there were no legal errors made, and one of the justices voting to overturn the decision because there wasn't adequate evidence that the suit rested on the content and character of the work. When we filed a motion for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals -- the highest authority in this state for this kind of a matter -- and got back a denial, it was pretty clear we were nearing the end of the road. But on the principle of the matter, on the grounds that the work was not Constitutionally obscene, and the principle of the matter that the work in question was sold by an adult to an adult, in an adults only section of the store, we felt that it was our moral duty to take this case as far as the legal system would allow it. And we knew walking in that it was a very, very long shot that the Supreme Court would hear this case. The Supreme Court hears between two and five percent of all cases brought before it. However, as long as there was a possibility of justice being served, we had to move forward. And so, I think that the Fund waged an aggressive defense.
Clearly our aggressive defense is what got the second charge against Jesus dropped -- that would be the sale of the Legend of the Overfiend comic -- so I think that we did a good job. Unfortunately, we were working against a very conservative community that had a very narrow vision of what this medium was capable of, and considered prejudicial statements in their final decision. I think in the future when the Fund receives a case like this -- and at this stage of the game it really is a matter of 'when' and not 'if' -- we need to be as aggressive as we were last time and perhaps a bit more cutthroat. And what that requires then is the full support of the community so that next time there is no appeal because we win on the first shot.
The majority opinion for the Texas appelate court (confirming his guilt)
I would appreciate the forum's help, since I am perplexed as to exactly what this guy is guilty of. The prosecution brought up the protect the children argument, yet the comic wasn't in the general section of the store accessible by children, and wasn't sold to a child.
The jury found the material obscene and so the defendant was guilty. If a jury can decide that something is obscene absent using the Miller Test for obscenity, then doesn't that mean anything can be obscene? Is this something that is desirable?
quote: Castillo was convicted by a jury in August 2000 of "display of obscenity" for selling Demon Beast Invasion #2 to an adult.
Here is a good article about it all. It would seen that had he had a Porn store, he would have been okay, but the fact that it was "comic book" which apparently, in Texas are only for kids, makes it a crime.
posted
The problem is that in Texas, there is no legal code saying that comics are only for kids. This is just an argument used by the prosecution, and it's why I phrased my question the way I did. You could make the same argument about any number of mediums. Sci-Fi, or Fantasy, leaps instantly to mind. After all, that is children's literature, isn't it? Furthermore, the argument wasn't just about medium, it also brought in the fact of location. So, now stuff that might be o.k. to sell to adults somehow becomes obscene due to proximity to children, even though they will never see it or read it.
At the end of the day, the whole bit about the children was just to prejudice the jury. They found the material obscene without considering the Miller Test. End of story. So, again, this isn't just about comic books. It's about the whim of a jury, or a community.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, the comics in question were *not* sold with the rest of the comic books. They were kept away from children.
One thing that did not come out in this case was whether or not the store would have checked ID if a minor would have tried to purchase the comic. I am *assuming* that the store would have, since they did keep the stuff seperate. However,it's all conjecture. The fact of the matter is that the comic was not sold to a minor and was kept seperate from the general comics.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, again, the whole children bit didn't even enter into the majority opinion. The jury found the comic obscene. End of story.
Now, whether they found it obscene with the belief, reinforced by the prosecutor, that they were protecting children is another story.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
If I was this guy, I would go on the offensive and start actively giving porn away to the kids after that travesty, then skip out to Mexico.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, do you think a community (edit: and/or a jury) should be able to declare the Bible or, say, the BoM obscene and arrest people who give it away or sell it?
posted
Do I think a community has the right/should have the power to declare something obscene and restrict it from areas where children can get to it?
posted
Kat, you are wearing your morality like a set of blinders here.
This was a witch hunt, and it only worked because the jury was swayed by an illogical plea of "won't somebody please think of the children!"
Comics of this sort carry a warning on the cover. They specifically say for sale to adults 18 or over. And like it or not, they are carried in nearly every comic book store in America.
And the judge specifically ordered that the stores proximity to a school was NOT to be included in the deliberation.
This guy was railroaded, and you should be outraged, whether you find adult comics personally offensive or not.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
More to the point, it wasn't sold to a child, and no evidence as given that children had ever bought such things at that store.
If he had been busted because he sold it to a minor this would not be a big deal. He sold it to an adult with ID, something he had every right to do.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
{Edit: Bush is also from Texas. This is one of out more. . . conservative states. You know, the one that managed to convict 10% of a towns population based on one racist cops lies. They even convicted someone that wasn't even in the state when the cop said he bought drugs from him.)
Sorry Kat, but this is another example of a jury gone awry. It's a shame no one screwed the case up so it could be appealed.
But am I wrong? You think this is ok, because you find the material offensive. But the fact is, it was a flagrant misuse of the judicial system to railroad an honest business man. An honest business man who sold perfectly legal obscene materials.
Can you honestly say that you still think that's ok?
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gotta say, I don't think this was a fair decision.
He was selling legal material to adults.
He had all of the obscene stuff separated from the regular stuff.
I can't think of a single thing that this man did that was legally wrong. If their goal was to get the store away from the school, I don't think this decision will accomplish that, necessarily.
Anyone who thinks that only kids read comic books is sadly misinformed. I don't buy any of the porno stuff, but my Superman collection is the biggest one I've seen in Utah outside of Salt Lake.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A comic book won the Pulitzer Prize (Maus by Art Spiegelman). A comic book won the 1991 World Fantasy Award for best short story (Sandman #19 by Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess). A sizeable percentage of the comics being produced these days aren't written with children in mind at all, and not because they have sexual content.
What do comics have to do to shake the "for kids" label, anyway? Take a bullet for the president?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck no. Not even that would work. Remember, comic became really popular during WWII when the Superheroes were fighting Hitler. If taking out Hitler didn't work, I doubt saving W would. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, comics are relatively mainstream in Japan, perhaps due to the huge amount of nudity, graphic violence, and awkward sexual situations in Japanese comics. Maybe if American comics were dirtier, they'd be more acceptable to the adult public.
*rolls eyes*
Yeah, this was a boneheaded ruling. Like so MANY boneheaded rulings recently. One of the joys of living in a largely conservative country, I'm afraid.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What this verdict is saying is not 'this guy did something wrong' it's 'these comics are wrong'... I think it's unfair that he gets punished for doing his JOB...
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's unfair that he gets punished for doing his JOB...
How do you feel about drug dealers?
My support of the court's decision rests largely on the question: is the comic book obscene? If what I've read about it is true, than I have to say it is, and he's guilty of selling obscene material.
I am uncomfortable with the fact that Keith's Comics had only a sign between the adult section of comic books and the section open to everyone. In addition, Keith's was investigated in the first place because of a complaint. I'd like to know what the circumstances generating that complaint were: i.e., did Jimmy go to the store to buy Archie comics, see Demon Beast Invasion #2, and run home to tell Mom, or did Mom come into the store and see for herself? Or did Jimmy actually manage to get past the sign (heaven knows an 8x11 sheet of paper keeps most curious 10 year olds out) and walk into the adult section?
The prosecutor, if wanting to take the save-our-kids-route, would have been much better served were he able to prove that Keith's Comics was negligent in securing the adult comic area. But aside from his closing arguments, I do not see evidence of that being his handle on the case anyway.
The defense made an absolutely stupid error in bringing in a comic book writer and a professor of Asian studies to testify for this case. Especially the professor-- what in the world does Japanese culture have to do with the AMERICAN cultrual feeling toward sexually explicit material? Irrelevant in the extreme. The comic book writer-- well, the vested interest there is so palpable, the jury could probably eat it. Probably did eat it, as a matter of fact. Yummy.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The expert, Scott McCloud, is a comic book writer, but he's also the author of the two seminal works on comics as an art form, Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics. I'd say he qualifies as an expert witness.
I think what bugs me most about this is that when he sold the comic, it was not a crime. I don't think people should be imprisoned for selling something that has not yet been determined illegal. If the comic is deemed obscene, rule it so, and then the next guy to sell it can get canned. Hey, maybe we can get a department to do this. A government agency to decide what's obscene and what isn't. I'm sure Ashcroft would head this up in a heartbeat. Get rid of those nasty comics with all the sex and violence and political dissension before innocent young minds see them. Anyone who creates a comic can submit it to the agency to be weighed for obscenity before it can be sold. That way store owners won't have to go to jail for accidentally selling an adult comic to an adult.
This isn't sarcasm, incidentally. Legal precedence has now been set. If I were a comics store owner I'd be thinking long and hard about whether it was safe to sell potentially questionable material for fear of incarceration. Why censor when you can terrify instead? Much easier, less work. Sex comics are right out, I suppose. Definitely get rid of probably the most award-winning comic series Sandman since it contains occasional nudity, several scenes of horrific violence, at least two rapes, and different interpretations of Christian history. Sick stuff.
This wasn't a porn store across the street from a school. It was a comics store with a tiny percentage of adult comics, hidden behind a counter, accessible only by adults who asked to see it.
I'd be interested in knowing if anyone from the school had ever talked to the man and asked him to stop selling these comics. "Hey, we have a school across the street, we were wondering if you could get rid of the adult stuff. We'd appreciate it." Share their concerns with him, in stead of automatically treating him like adrug dealer. If he's like most comics store owners the adult comics were a tiny portion of his stock, it's possible he would have voluntarily stopped selling them to stay in good graces with the local community, or maybe special ordered them only for specific subscribers so they never reached the box behind the counter. Don't know, doesn't look like anyone tried that.
[ August 15, 2003, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Not the same in a couple different ways. As Chris already mentioned, street drugs are known to be illegal. None of the comics in the store were known to be illegal. As well, if you want to compare the effects of drugs to naughty comic books such that there is a clear parallel, be my guest. Otherwise, I don't really see that there is an analogy, other than the fact that some people in society regard them as 'bad'.
quote: My support of the court's decision rests largely on the question: is the comic book obscene? If what I've read about it is true, than I have to say it is, and he's guilty of selling obscene material.
The problem is that there appears to be two different lines drawn around what is obscene. One for children and one for adults. The prosecutor played dirty pool by bringing up the 'protect the children' argument,since that had never been an issue. In effect, the cashier was convicted under the lower obscenity bar for children for reasons that the judge specifically said not to consider.
quote: I am uncomfortable with the fact that Keith's Comics had only a sign between the adult section of comic books and the section open to everyone.
What the description is saying is that the area was cordoned off and in a seperate area. Since there is no evidence that any children had been allowed to go into that area or had seen any of those comics, this appears to have been enough.
quote: In addition, Keith's was investigated in the first place because of a complaint. I'd like to know what the circumstances generating that complaint were: i.e., did Jimmy go to the store to buy Archie comics, see Demon Beast Invasion #2, and run home to tell Mom, or did Mom come into the store and see for herself? Or did Jimmy actually manage to get past the sign (heaven knows an 8x11 sheet of paper keeps most curious 10 year olds out) and walk into the adult section?
quote: Still, Castillo waits for his appeal to be heard. He has no prior arrests, and told court officers he "was very diligent" in keeping children out of the adult section of Keith's Comics. He obviously enjoys working there: He started during his senior year of high school and worked his way up to manager. He still lives with his parents in East Dallas. Yet he waits, labeled a purveyor of obscenity in the eyes of the law and the PTA.
Whatever speculation you might engage in, the facts of the case are that there is no evidence that children could either see, or were able to see, or purchase, the adult comics.
quote: The defense made an absolutely stupid error in bringing in a comic book writer and a professor of Asian studies to testify for this case. Especially the professor-- what in the world does Japanese culture have to do with the AMERICAN cultrual feeling toward sexually explicit material? Irrelevant in the extreme. The comic book writer-- well, the vested interest there is so palpable, the jury could probably eat it. Probably did eat it, as a matter of fact. Yummy.
It was a Japanese comic. If you're going to get someone to expound on the vagaries of a Japanese comic, an expert in Japanese anime and manga, and an expert in comics sounds like a good idea to me.
The Miller Test, nor the First Amendment, does not discriminate between cultural values. I do recognize that that is an ideal and not the reality, though.
posted
Chris, the Dallas Observer hints at it, and I can't find the link where I read it, but apparently the Demon Invasion comic was ordered by someone who never came to pick it up. Then the comic book was put on the shelf. There is some speculation that the vice squad/moral nit pickers couldn't get a conviction on the store with the adult stock normally on its shelves, so they special ordered something that they could get an easy conviction on.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Dallas Observer? You are basing your outrage on a conspiracy theory dreamed up by the Dallas Observer?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is completely ridiculous. An employee of a comic book shop should not get in trouble for selling an ADULT comic to an ADULT. There is nothing illegal about that.
Now if he sold it to a child that would be a different story....but he didn't. HE SOLD IT TO AN ADULT. One who presumably asked to peruse the adult section, chose the comic, brought it to the register and chose to purchase it. The employee did not force it on him...he just works there.
Man....adult comics are nothing new. They have been around for a very long time. Most comic shops have an adult section that is separate from the area filled with the general comics. The authorities in Texas need to get a clue and find something more important to focus their energy on.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious to know if there is a convenience store nearby the school that stocks pornographic magazines. Since they never even tried to show that children had access to the obscene comics, I don't see how it would be different than a convenience store that has magazines behind the counter or a video store that has a back room.
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zan, I read about it in the recent Orlando Weekly. No suprise there. Out of consideration for other people on this board, I won't say anything other than, wouldn't it be nice if people of differing moral ethics didn't have to all live together in once city?
As well, the majority opinion link I posted mentioned that there were a couple places within about one mile of the comics store that sold adult magazines. As they put it, this is irrelevant, since they weren't under discussion, but that they might very well be obscene as well....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
