E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Robert F. Bukaty / AP file
Mark Strong, who is accused of helping his ex-mistress run a prostitution business, wants Skype screenshots of her liaisons excluded as evidence in his trial.
An insurance agent charged with helping a Zumba instructor run a prostitution business thinks X-rated images of the liaisons are too hot for the jury to handle.
A lawyer for Mark Strong asked a Maine judge on Monday to exclude a whopping 577 Skype screenshots, arguing the prosecution wants to "drown" his client in "extremely sexual" and prejudicial evidence, the Bangor Daily News reported.
Joel Page / AP
Alexis Wright will go on trial in the spring for allegedly running a prostitution business out of her Zumba studio.
"I think some of this stuff is going to horrify some of these people to the point where he won't possibly get a fair trial," defense attorney Daniel Lilley said on the fifth-day of the trial.
Prosecutors contend the images found on Strong's computer of his ex-mistress, Alexis Wright, and a string of men show he was "actively involved" in the prostitution business.
Strong's attorney countered at worst it shows his client is a "voyeur."
The judge has not yet ruled on whether jurors can see the Skype shots, but signaled that she's inclined to allow them, the newspaper reported.
Strong, 57, who also worked as a part-time private eye in Thomaston, Maine, faces 13 prostitution-related counts.
Wright, 30, is charged with 106 counts for allegedly selling sex to dozens of men at her Kennebunk, Maine, dance studio and home. She will be tried later.
A police computer expert testified Monday that Strong deleted email from his computer a day after Wright's office and home were raided, but he seized the Skype images, spreadsheets and tax documents.
The detective returns to the stand on Tuesday, but only after the judge rules on a defense motion to throw out the remaining charges against Strong. Forty-six counts of privacy invasion have already been dismissed.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Leave a Comment:
Simple,just legalize the oldest profession in all 50 states and tax it.Everything else is becomin legit.
Pizza face.
Old dog's pizza faced trophy girl - ha ha ha
bang a gong, get it on......................................................
WTF??? Pictures to sexy for a court room trial.
But its ok to show the pictures of a raped murdered child in court rooms..with their parents there also!
Does not matter what it is, if it is evidence...... IT IS EVIDENCE.............. Evidence is evidence is evidence. Doesn't matter how "sexy" it is.......................................
I agree outdoorsman, the jury is instructed to be impartial and fair in their judgement. To do their job they need all the evidence possible (legally obtained). Withholding evidence for any reason other than illegal search and seizure is an effort to skew the frame of reference the jury needs to make an informed decision.
As for the "sexy" nature of the images, first I have to say that in the United States, TV shows such as the walking dead portray horrible grievous wounds, including those inflicted by the cannibalism of zombies, being perpetrated on both children and adults.
I think that as a nation, if we are able to handle such violent scenes of human being brutalizing each other, without viewers running through the streets vomiting and crying hysterically, then a group of jurors should be able to emotionally handle images of two (or more?) human beings giving each other joy and pleasure.
And really, what tiny portion of the adult population HASN'T looked at porn? and not just what you can download, I mean fantasies too. Has anyone reading this never had a sexual fantasy about another human being? Fictional or real?
Really, whats the worst you can do to someone? Eat their face off, or give them a consenting orgasm?
Think about it... no! keep thinking, a bit more.... and there!
Not so fast, you two.
"Evidence is evidence is evidence" is NOT always true.
See my posts 13.1 and 15
Very good point's Jeff, from your posts below (13.1 and 15). Yes, the pictures may not be the only way to establish the nature of this business, they may be excess above and beyond what is needed to establish the crimes. I completely agree with you there.
However the headline implies that the raciness of the pictures is the issue, not whether they merit use in proving or disproving the charges against the defendants.
The way in which this story is reported may be intentionally over-sensationalized, taking focus away for your excellent point below where you stated...
"Every state has an exclusionary rule for otherwise legally obtained evidence. They go somewhat like "if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the UNDO prejudicial effect, it can be excluded"."
And instead focusing on the content of the pictures, instead of their merit as evidence.
We can only hope that Tracy Connor, the listed writer for this post, reads your comments and exercises more caution to produce factual news that stays on topic, instead of distracting sensationalism.
Alright, to all you people thinking it! No, you can not volunteer to be on the jury, especially if you are not a resident of the state!
Thank you for your kind words, NoLiberty but, alas, even I cant stem the tide of "internet journalism".
@Jeff, Well done, you go to the head of the class for today! Clear and concise.
The posters who posit "UNDO (sic) prejudice" clearly don't understand the meaning of the term as applied to evidence (and the word is "undue"). The salacious content of the evidence is not an issue; whether he had any interest or provided any assistance in her enterprise of having sex for money with men, pictures of which were on HIS computer when she was HIS girlfriend (or "mistress"), is the only issue, and the judge is certainly going to allow the images to be introduced in evidence in his trial.
.
Fred.
You're embarrassing yourself.
Quit while you're behind.
What do you mean to Sexy? If it is evidence, use it to convict them and send the off to prison for their crimes.
Here's the rpoblem, you might have a valid argument, but then some of these clients have stood in judgement over others for things like cannabis use and rejected arguments that it should be legal, to let them walk now legitimizes their absolute hypocrisy.
If they would like to send me those 577 skype shots they don't want to use, I've got time to view them!!
of course it would be for research purposes only.
Ridiculous! There should be no crime here. Puritanical Americans are the problem. Legalize the sex industry just as they do in many European countries. Health inspections etc. Legalize drugs as well. The government should be selling them to anyone over 21. However if someone 21 or older then sells or gives them to someone under 21 they should immediately be executed. No stopping at go, this is no game. Public execution on t.v. so everyone can see within a year of the crime.
Jim....not ridiculous....it's still illegal. When/if the law is changed these charges will be "ridiculous".
Ridiculous - arousing or deserving ridicule, laughable.
The issue isn't whether it is 'illegal'. The issue is whether the whole concept is laughable. And that it most assuredly is. When you look at all the problems our country has, it is laughable that we spend a dime prosecuting two consenting adults for an activity that is harmful to no one. If Americans spent half as much time taking care of their own business as they do worrying about what their neighbors are doing our country would be in much better shape.
what about the whole video taping the whole thing without consent? What is laughable is that pervs want this to be legal with the false hope of tax revenue. Yeah, Nevada is doing just great financially arent they?
Give me a break. In many states they TELL when before you become a juror that there will be stuff like this. And the Lawyers know this stuff. Delay tactics. Keep the stuff in. It'll give everyone a thrill and something to talk about to their spouses after it's over will. Hell even your kids can Google porn and see somethings that are XXXYZ.
I would agree that the judge could perhaps allow a small number of the less offensive skype items be shown to the jury, but, this is a small town area of Maine and if too many of them are allowed they could have far reaching impact/harm on some of these clients families and children. I have a home in the area and know the harm it could do to some. We are not talking about a large town or city like Boston, NY, etc. Common sense needs to come into play in some of these trials.
Ginny, why are you protecting the johns? Without the johns, she wouldn't have had a business! Would you protect a bank robber, kidnapper, rapist? Sure, some families may be affected by some of the skype items. That's the way it is in families: All family members ARE affected by the actions of the other family members. I guess hubby/dad should have thought of that before getting involved, huh??!!!
Same old story, the hooker gets charged and the johns walk. A lot of folks here think that prostitution is a victimless crime but how about the wife that worked as hard as hubby and then finds out hubby has squandered nearly a half a million on high dollar hookers. The 401k gets wiped out, house goes into foreclosure, both parties credit is ruined, messy divorce and both wind up broke. Yeah, tell me one more time that it's an innocent thing between two people. When it comes to family men there's a lot more folks in the middle instead of two consenting adults. There are spouses, children and families that can get very hurt by all this. If this woman goes to jail her boyfriend and johns need to get a taste of the bitter medicine as well.
Everyone loves a hore dogs......just look a the k-dogs(Cardushians)
Jesus just legalize this sh*t already.
Prostitution and marijuana should be made legal and taxed. Would raise a lot of money for the lots of municipalities piggy banks.
I won't discuss the virtue of legalizing these two products, but more taxes flowing into the pockets of overpaid, do nothing politicians is not the answer. Let's talk about term limits, and ridding our system of waste and corruption.
At one time I was all for legalizing marijuana but then got to thinking it is indeed a weed. You can grow it anywhere. Prositution not quite so difficult maybe like a "sales tax" or do we put a meter between their legs?
can I be on the jury ?
Wasn't "too sexy" for him to Skype and keep 577 of them huh? Na! Just his regular "keeping taps" on his business enterprise. Yeah that's the ticket!
Desperation is a stinky cologne... If this lady was a serial killer, the jury would be permitted to see images of the dead victims. What is so wrong about the live particpants being seen in action as well??
Dog.
Let me explain a bit about evidence to you.
If, say, a person is charged with murder by "a" stab wound to the heart and then, after death, he cuts off her head, the jury would be allowed to see shots of the stab wound - they would NOT be allowed to see pictures of the decapitation, because it is not necessary to establish the murder; the prejudicial effect of the decap. photos would outweigh the probative value of the photos and would thus be excluded.
Per my comment below, since the article is silent as to the specific charge, the photos in question may or may not be unduly prejudicial.
I would hate to be on the jury. I mean like, what if I got a boner?
In THAT case, gullible, it would be ok, because you'd be dealing with the Penile Code.
I wonder if her attorney is working pro bono? The defense rests, smokes a cigarette then falls asleep.
I'm so glad all you armchair lawyers have it figured out. One must wonder why, with all YOU guys here, that there even needs to be a judge to rule on evidence.
Every state has an exclusionary rule for otherwise legally obtained evidence. They go somewhat like "if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the UNDO prejudicial effect, it can be excluded".
This is a trial for the INSURANCE agent, not the "Madam" - Does ANYONE here know HOW he supposedly "helped" her "run a prostitution business" ? TELL us, oh wise lawyerwannabees on here - WHICH of those shots establish the prosecution's case, or even is probative on the matter ? I mean, you ALL saw them, right ?
btw - In "helping" her, is he being charged with "Aiding and abetting "? "Accessory before the fact " ? "Accessory AFTER the fact "? "Conspiracy "? Since each of these charges carry different elements, TELL us, oh wise ones on here....which of these photos are probative on which of the charges ? They're photos of SEX - do ANY of them evidence money changing hands ?
OH ! You dont KNOW the specific charge ? That doesnt stop you from giving a legal opinion on the evidence to SUPPORT those charges, right ?
Given that they are of HER having sex with other men, on HIS computer, and she was HIS mistress, there is little doubt they will be seen as material to the issue of whether he had any interest in, or assisted her in any way, in her prostitution enterprise.
Once again, Fred - you speak of that which you know nothing.
"Materiality" has not been used in decades - it's relevance.
Further, if you bothered to look at my posts, you'd know that we're not talking about "relevance" at all, but, whether that relevance is outweighed by prejudice.
Further, you forget that he is being charged with helping this woman engage in the business of prostitution, when SHE hasn't been tried much less convicted of prostitution; thus, the sex is not relevant, because he's charged with helping someone who supposedly did something for which she's not been convicted.
Try again - and THIS time, TRY to sound intelligent.
I personally attended this woman's business and let me assure you she is most professional at what she does. Worth every dollar I spent there.
Who needs porn anymore? Just attend this or the Jodi Arias trial to get your rocks.
Perhaps the photos aren't necessary. Maybe the ORAL testimony would speak for itself.
Insert hung jury joke here.
Oh, sure. "running a prostitution business out of her Zumba studio" is a no-no but offering it on the street to a passing-by car drivers does not bother anyone. Why don't we stop fighting what naturally was business # 1 line in the medieval times and just instead make it look and function more civilized ?
We as a nation are being ganged raped by da BANKSTERS, yet precious public funds are wasted on this? LOL!
Give prostitutes a license, just like married people get a license. If women that had sex were thrown in jail; all mothers giving birth would be in jail.
Outdoorsman 253, No Liberty, and Dog, in the famous words from, The Big Lebowski, are "...out of their element" and should shut up. They no nothing about evidence as Jeff has pointed out. Evidence is one of the most difficult courses in law school and the rules of evidence highly developed to make sure that evidence is reliable, justice is met, and prejudice avoided. As a trial lawyer I can tell you that less gets in than is precluded and with good reason. The prejudicial and inflammatory nature of the skypes dictates that it should not be admitted, but the trial is in Maine where goobers are goobers and judges probably no less so.
In any event, why is this country still hung up on sex, whether for pay or play. Prostitution is not against the law in most industrialized Western countries which are absent our ridiculous hang ups.
These photos are too sexy for trial, but they'll do just fine in my private collection!
Typical Sleazebag Trial Lawyer...wants to take the sex out of a sex case, to slant things toward his trashy client.
It's amazing what trial lawyer sleaze get away with, and the joke of a legal system they have turned our formerly world-class one into.