A couple of things strike me:

1. Why is this judge having a hard time figuring out if the videos need to be played in their entirety in court? Haven't there been obscenity cases before? What was done then? Why is this even a question? Can this judge spell "precedent"?

2. What did the prosecution expected Jaded to say with respect to whether or not Max shipped the videos? How can they have expected *any* *other* *answer* than "No"? What possible value could they ever have expected Jaded's testimony to have other than to the defense?

3. Is there *any* manufacturer in the US who won't file a friend-of-the-court brief (under the name of an outside attorney of course) supporting Max arguing that a manufacturer should not face local criminal liability because of decisions by a retailer or distributor they do not control? Will a plastic bag manufacturer in MI face criminal prosecution in CA if a distributor sends a shipment of plastic grocery bags to SF or somewhere else where they're illegal?
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock