Press enter after choosing selection

'Flaming Creatures' Case Set For Dec. 11 Trial

'Flaming Creatures' Case Set For Dec. 11 Trial image
Parent Issue
Copyright Protected
Rights Held By
Donated by the Ann Arbor News. © The Ann Arbor News.
OCR Text

'Flaming Creatures' Case Set For Dec. 11 Trial

By Mary Wallace not proven that the four knew

Three University students the contents of the film before
and an instructor will be trie^ "^"—ig it or knew that it was
Dec. 11 in Washtenaw Circun

Court on a charge of showing] i.n support of their ~iotio" to
an obscene motion picture, the) suppress the film a- e
film "Flaming Creatur"" "^cy outlined a prueeuure
which was seized from iich they said must be fol-
V-f/Sr fin5B*a»Guild last i»ctn-±uwed. This includes determina-
uary^^ ^ tion of its obscenity by a magis-

Judge^WiBfam F. Ager Jr. set trate following an adversary
the trial date late yesterday procedure.

after den'""" defense motions Goodman said police officers
to dismi.1' ;es against the can't be permitted discretion to
four persoi^i mid to suppress seize "First Amendment ma-
the use of the film as evidence, terials." < |

Defense attorneys Dean Robb Goodman andRobb said there
and WiUiam Goodman argued was no "emergency" requiring
that their motion to dismiss seizure of the film without the
should be granted because the proper judicial procedure and
prosecution's case was based observed that there had been
on statements of the defendants no request to view the film be-
and the fact of the crime can fore the public showing.

not be proved by extra judicial Robb contended, "The Cin-
statements of the defendant, ema Guild is not people en-

They said the prosecution had gaged in pandering of sex or in

making profit. For 18 years it
has been bringing important
films to Ann Arbor. Here three
young students and a teacher
are facing criminal charges for
showing one film in a series en-
titled 'a serious study of the
film.' The particular setting of
this film showing should enter j

"The police and prosecutor
didn't ask for an advance view-
ing. They treated this Univer-
sity function as if it were a
smoker," the defense attorney

Assistant Prosecutor Thom-
as F. Shea who participated in
the Jan. 18 seizure countered,
"There is no first amendment!
privilege in this case. This is
an obscene film."

He cited a New York case
in which the U. S. Supreme
Court did not rule "on the great the

constitutional issues counsel
would have us believe are pres-
ent here" but in which r.''•'•• i"
Justice Earl Warren .;,
"This film falls outside the pro-
tections of the First Amend-

Shea said the film was seized
as a result of a misdemeanor
being committed in the pres-
ence of a police officer. He cit-
ed Michigan law which would
permit the exhibitors ^ "• turn
to obtain a ruling ob-
scenity question beiuie .iiiow-
ing it. "The defendants chose
at their peril to show such a|
film," Shea said.

"To put prior restraint on the
police when they are viewing
the commission of a crime
would completely frustrate law
enforcement," the prosecutor
told the court.

Shea added that the fact that
film was to be shown only

one night created the emergen- Miranda case. Police Detective "There is no question that we
cy so that the judicial proce- Lt Eugene L. Staudenmaier are a government of the people

•^ure spelled out in a California "knews omeon ^^a^atid that the rights of mdivid-
case wherp the. film in ques- char^ and thus should have ^ ^ ^^ jealously guard-

tion was r two weeks warned .them of their rights ^ yian ever before or than
could not ; een followed.] ° remam sllent and to have at- anywhere else in the world. But
Shea further said that the jS ^er mkd that the de- v c never meant to C

, . .,,_.,. ., , » J uuge Ager luieu iiicti me ue , ,„- r'1nfllr flrminrl n •••

showing in the University's Ar-,. i,,^s' statements can be -whn atfp^nttnC oth !

chitecture Auditorium was ^ suooort the contention pie \\ ° attem^ t0 barm oth-
red+riptpd tn thp academic i, .n- ^"PP011-.,""- i-onw"""" ers through use of coinmumca-
resinctea to tne academic L»i ^^ ^gy committed the crime ;„_„ ™nJ- v

cle, that admission was charged but not to pw ? that the crime tlons mwla- . „ ,.

and that anyone who had the ^s committed "• • • Sssically this court

price could enter. Exhibits presented by Shea ^els that there are some per-

Robb said at the conclusion including advertisements and formances which could be so
of these arguments that the de- copies of a review by Susan obscene that there is no ques-
fense would also like time to Sontag which were circulated twn that "^ must be stopped.
raise the issue of whether or by the defendants showed their ^ would be unfortunate in this
not the students should ha—h-" ""ledge of the film's con- country if law enforcement of-
been given the "Miranda wa he said. flcers had to stand ^ and walt
ing" when they went to the p^-; ^n the motion to suppress to gel Judicial determination
lice station to inquire about the the evidence, Ager said "The when the film could then be
disposition of the film. right of free speech is not an moved outside that courts ;)u-

Although they were not in po- unlimited right. Some restric-i1'1^1^"-
lice custody within the U.S. Su- tions are of necessity laid upon "Police have a duty to seize
preme Court's statement in the it. evidence dealing with the com-

mission of a crime," Judse
Ager said. He added that
case did present an emergency
situation to law officers.

Judge Ager made it clear that
he was not ruling on "Flaming
^'•"atures" itself but only on

procedures required of po-

He also pointed out that the
defendants could have avoided
the clash with the law by seek-
ing a prior ruling.

Ager set the trial date for the
four with the understanding
that any further motions may
be brought by either side on
any Friday before Dec. 11.

The defendants in this case
are Hubert L. Cohen, 36, an
English instructor who was Cin-
ema Guild assistant manager,
Ellen P. Frank and Mary E.
Barkey, both 19, and Elliot S.
Bardon,20. |