Attorney Allan Gelbard indicated the defense would like to call one of the actresses who appear in the films, but requested permission from the court to refer to the actress in open court only by her stage name.
Gelbard said that they would be happy to provide the court the actresses’ real name and social security number, but as a matter of safety they would prefer not to have her real name disclosed in open court.
Gelbard told the judge that death threats are a very real possibility and a previous client of his once had her real name disclosed and a stalker managed to find her location at a hotel, which was a threatening situation for the woman involved.
Prosecutor Pamela Satterfield objected to granting the exemption to the witness, saying it would “give the air of legitimacy to a porn star” and that this witness shouldn’t be treated differently than any other witness.
In the regards to the danger of death threats, Satterfield said that she herself had been subjected to death threats because of her work in this case.
Judge Richard J. Leon said that it was a “very unusual request” and that he wanted to think on it before ruling. He seemed to indicate however he may rule against the request, saying that he couldn’t think of a drug trial where such a request was made or granted.
Testimony later resumed with FBI agent Daniel Bradley back on the stand. Bradley detailed the remaining scenes of “Milk Nymphos,” which the jury watched part of yesterday.
After which the government introduced exhibit four, “Storm Squirters 2.” The government displayed both the front and back cover of the DVD to the jury, but also included a paper advertisement that had been tucked into the DVD case.
This paper advertisement, which included descriptions and pictures of other movies for sale, would later become another issue in the case. It was displayed to the jury, but later outside of their presence, defense counsel Paul Cambria would object, saying defense had never been made aware of its existence.
The other issue defense council raised was that the pictures and descriptions of other movies contained within were not relevant to the case as those movies have presumptive constitutional protection.