Posted on 06/26/2003 6:32:54 PM PDT by chance33_98
UPDATED: Jurors say photos of nude teen were porn, not art
By Ihosvani Rodriguez Express-News Staff Writer
Web Posted : 06/26/2003 4:15 PM
If Benito Tovar considers himself an artist, then a jury essentially ordered him today to suffer for his art. The jury of six men and six woman, all of them parents, took less two hours today to proclaim the 33-year-old guilty of the two charges stemming from nude photographs he took of a 16-year-old on the River Walk about 1 ½ years ago.
Tovar and his attorneys insisted throughout the trial that the eight black and white photos, which depict the teen in often-bizarre postures, were indeed art. Jurors, however, told reporters and lawyers that they never considered it anything but pornography.
“In my eyes it was a minor who was completely nude, and it was disturbing to me from the moment I saw them,” juror Marc Villarreal said. “I think everyone in this jury agrees with me, and we never thought of it as art from the very beginning.”
Tovar, now officially convicted of inducing a sexual performance of a minor and possession of child pornography, could now face up to 10 years in prison. Tovar is automatically required to register as a sexual offender for the rest of his life.
He will be sentenced Aug. 4 after District Judge Juanita Vasquez-Gardner receives a recommendation from investigators over what his punishment should be.
Tovar was led away in handcuffs as some of his family members wept.
While admitting to police that he knew the teen was a minor at the time of the photo shoot on Nov. 3, 2001, Tovar had maintained that his only intention was to make it an artistic venture and not a sexual experience.
Tovar and the teen were arrested after several people notified police of the spectacle on the River Walk.
At the center of the trial was the question of whether the teen was being “lewd” in the photographs. Although lewd is one of the criteria used in Texas law to define sexual performance, there is no clear definition for what is lewd.
Defense attorneys pointed out that the teen never touched himself in any of the photos and differed remarkably on the prosecutor’s definition of lewd.
“I would say that you can give these photos to a lot of people, and they would tell you that ‘This is not New York City. This is Texas. It looks like porn to me,’” defense attorney Fernando Cortes said. “Maybe this is not the type of art you like, but it certainly doesn't deserve conviction. It doesn't deserve going to prison for.”
In their closing, prosecutors Ina Minjarez and Michael Hoyle charged Tovar was only out to exploit the teen, and they blasted the notion that the photographs were art.
“If taking pictures of a 16-year-old in the middle of the River Walk in the middle of the day is not lewd, then what is?” Hoyle asked the jury. “These are not pictures you would buy. These are not pictures you would hang on top of a fireplace or show your family with pride. So if it is not art, then it's exploitation.”
After their verdict, jurors questioned Tovar’s court-appointed attorneys on why they never brought in an art expert to testify in their client’s behalf. Attorney David Cuellar said he was working under a limited budget and added that a number of local artists refused to lend their names to the controversial subject.
“The verdict was indicative of where we are living,” Cuellar told reporters. “It’s a Bible Belt area, and I think this verdict would’ve been different somewhere else.”
Good.
He. Which makes it even more likely that the SC would deem it protected behaivor.
It would be interesting to see this case advanced to the Supremes and see if they apply the same cursed logic.
The teen was a "he".
"Defense attorneys pointed out that the teen never touched himself in any of the photos "
Looks like Texas juries went 2 for 2 today.
You may need to read my posts again.
What kind of 16-year-old kid wants pictures taken of himself naked???
I can understand how some 16-year-old girl might be conned into thinking she's some kind of glamorous model...
but a 16-year-old guy????
Sheeeeeesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.