After lengthy plea negotiations, webmaster Chris Wilson pled "no contest" this afternoon to five misdemeanor counts of possession with intent to distribute obscene material, according to his attorney, Lawrence G. Walters.
"Chris Wilson has entered a no contest plea to a few misdemeanor charges," Walters reported, "in exchange for dismissal of his felony case and 295 misdemeanors. He avoids all jail time and any felony conviction. He ends up with a $500 fine and probation. He can operate the site for 90 days, after which he has agreed to stay out of the adult Internet business during the period of his probation. Mr. Wilson has denied any fault and maintained his innocence throughout the case, including during the plea."
"The most important thing is, the client got what he wanted and avoided what he wanted," Walters continued. "I don't know whether you have 'withholds of adjudication' in California or not, but in Florida, a judge has the ability to decide whether to actually convict him of the misdemeanors, or to withhold adjudication of guilt, so that he would have no conviction on his record. That won't be decided until the actual sentencing, which is on April 21, and it will be based on his prior record and the presentence investigation and other factors like that."
Walters noted that the state had threatened to add state racketeering charges to the felony obscenity charge that Wilson was already facing – a common prosecutorial ploy in Florida – which Walters said "raised the stakes for everyone." On the other hand, both sides have been waiting for Florida's Second Circuit Court of Appeals to issue its opinion on why Wilson's bail on his original bust was improperly revoked and Wilson jailed over the Christmas holiday – and no one has a clue what the basis (or bases) of that opinion will be.
"The looming opinion was a significant motivating factor in settling the case," Walters explained. "There was uncertainty created by that pending opinion on both sides."
However, Walters was reasonably sure that the state, in accepting Wilson's no-contest plea, was not trying to head off the issuance of that opinion.
"I believe that the Second District will still rule on the case regardless of whatever we do here in the trial level, for a number of reasons," Walters said. "One is, the case isn't over; the sentencing hasn't occurred yet, so there's been no final judgment, and beyond that, what the district court is really going do is explain why it took the actions that it took as opposed to rendering an opinion on some issue to be decided in the case. He's been released, and now they're just going to say, 'This is why we did it, and it took us a few weeks to put it in writing,' but they will still, in my opinion, do that because that issue has not been rendered moot even though release was granted."
"But I think it was the main consideration for the state settling," Walters continued, "because there was this potential opinion out there that could go against them, and could gut their entire case. The fact that it still likely will be issued is of great benefit to the industry, because to the extent that it says anything relating to the prior restraint doctrine, the [Constitution's] commerce clause or constitutionality or evidence, you know, that will potentially be helpful in future cases, and we know it'll come out in our favor, so that's a good thing."
