Before they are chosen to serve in Larry Flynt's obscenity trial, jurors will tell a roomful of strangers whether they've ever purchased a pornographic magazine. They will talk about their videotape rentals, discuss sex acts and reveal how often they tune in to The Jerry Springer Show. And if they make it through all that, they will be asked how they feel about watching 40 hours of sexually explicit movies.
"We're looking for people with an open mind," Mr. Flynt said Monday after the first day of his trial. "Hopefully we'll find some." Twenty-two years after his first obscenity trial here, Hamilton County residents are once again being asked to decide the fate of Mr. Flynt and his brother Jimmy. The prospective jurors who showed up Monday in Common Pleas Court included homemakers, a nun with the Sisters of Charity, corporate executives and the mother of Prosecutor Mike Allen.
"I guess it goes to show that it really is a small world," Mr. Allen said of his mother's jury duty. Although Mrs. Allen and the nun were dismissed from service, 47 other jurors made the first cut and will be questioned in more detail today.
Twelve will be selected this week to determine whether the Flynts are guilty of selling obscene videotapes from their Hustler store downtown. The jury is expected to spend up to five weeks listening to testimony and watching all 16 videotapes before deciding whether the material violates community standards for obscenity. If they conclude it does, the Flynts each could face more than 20 years in prison.
During the next few days, prosecutors and defense attorneys will ask a barrage of questions intended to weed out prospective jurors who may favor the other side.
Many of those questions were part of an eight-page jury form handed out Monday to all prospective jurors. The form seeks basic information - marital status, hometown, religious beliefs - but also includes questions about sex, pornography and Mr. Flynt.
The jurors were asked whether they have strong beliefs about the sale of sexually oriented materials and whether they have read Mr. Flynt's Hustler magazine.The questionnaire, drafted by attorneys on both sides, also asks how often jurors rent videotapes and watch TV programs such as the Springer show.
One question directly addresses a key issue in the trial: "Do you have an opinion about any specific type of sexual act ... such that simply viewing that sex act alone on a videocassette would cause you to prejudge the videocassette as obscene?"
The questionnaires are designed to help the lawyers develop a strategy for jury selection, which most agree is a crucial part of any obscenity trial.
"Everybody knows the basics of this case," Mr. Flynt said Monday. "It all comes down to the jury."
One of Mr. Flynt's four lawyers, Paul Cambria of Buffalo, N.Y., said the first task is to find out whether the jurors have been influenced by pretrial publicity or by Mr. Flynt's reputation.
"We don't really know if there's going to be a problem yet," he said. To help them through the selection process, Assistant Prosecutors Thomas Longano and Steve Tolbert called in a veteran of more than 80 obscenity prosecutions. Bruce Taylor, of the National Law Center for Children and Families in Fairfax, Va., said his experience in obscenity cases has taught him what to look for in jurors.
"A prosecutor just wants an average person with a family who cares about Cincinnati," Mr. Taylor said. "Cincinnati is one of the few major cities that doesn't have hard-core pornography. People here might want to keep it that way."
He said a poor jury selection can ruin the case for prosecutors because it only takes one vote to deadlock a jury and force a mistrial.
"If you get a person who won't follow the law, who won't convict no matter what, then it's over before it started," he said.
Once selected, the jurors must evaluate the videos and measure them against a test established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The final part of the test requires jurors to decide whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious artistic, literary, scientific or social value.
A few prospective jurors told Judge Patrick Dinkelacker they already had made up their minds.
"I've been following the Flynt situation for some time," said one juror, shortly before he was dismissed. "I have a pretty strong opinion." Before sending him home, the judge told the man to keep his opinion to himself.
The nun explained that she, too, had been influenced by Mr. Flynt's history in Cincinnati,which includes a 1977 conviction on obscenity charges that was later overturned on appeal.
"This particular case," she said, "I've heard an awful lot about."
When they question jurors again today, lawyers on both sides will try to dig deeper for any sign of bias. The process can be tedious - even Mr. Flynt dozed briefly in court Monday - but it's critical to both the prosecution and the defense. Mr. Flynt said he's confident Cincinnati has changed enough in the past 22 years to produce jurors who won't be inclined to convict him simply because he has the reputation of a "dirty old man."
"I'm not saying Cincinnati is a dramatically different city than it was in 1977," he said. "But two new generations have come along, and I think they're more tolerant."
