Evidence Tossed in 'Girls Gone Wild' Case

Brutuskend

Lifer
Apr 2, 2001
26,558
4
0
Evidence Tossed in 'Girls Gone Wild' Case
By Associated Press
Wed Jul 26, 1:59 PM

PANAMA CITY, Fla. - Hundreds of hours of videotape seized by deputies in their 2003 search of "Girls Gone Wild" producer Joseph Francis' condominium cannot be used in a court case against him, a judge has ruled.

Circuit Judge Dedee Costello granted a defense motion on Tuesday to suppress all evidence gathered during the searches. Francis was arrested after two 17-year-olds claimed a "Girls Gone Wild" cameraman videotaped them in sexual situations.

Deputies seized 700 items that formed the basis for most of the 42 charges against Francis, 33, and his company. Authorities say Francis targeted underage girls for his videos. He could face decades in prison if convicted.

The case is set for trial this year.

"In a very basic sense, all of the evidence the Sheriff's Office seized is no longer relevant to our case," defense attorney Aaron Dyer told the Panama City News Herald.

State Attorney Steve Meadows said he would have to wait until the order is finalized to know how badly it would damage his case.

"The obvious strength of this case is that much of the illegal conduct alleged is caught on videotape," he said.

Defense attorneys based their motion to suppress on the fact that the search warrants were not specific about what deputies were looking for in the condominium.

In their motion to suppress the evidence they wrote that that investigators never stated what evidence of the specific allegation involving the two underaged girls they expected to find at the condominium.

"Once the undisputed facts are applied to the law, it becomes clear that the searches of the Girls Gone Wild condo units were part of a pre-planned contrived effort on the part of law enforcement to search for and seize every asset, videotape, T-shirt and scrap of paper in the possession of Girls Gone Wild," defense attorneys wrote.

 

T9D

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2001
5,320
6
0
Man he lucked out. In all fairness I doubt he knew they were under 18 though. And thats a rough sentence for just trying to make some entertainment and unknowingly film some probably very mature looking grls. He's still a sleeze though
 

amdforever2

Golden Member
Sep 19, 2002
1,879
0
0
OMG!

A STRAIGHT GUY
UNDERAGE GIRLS?


NONSENSE!

EVERYONE KNOWS ONLY GAYS DO THAT KIND OF SICK ******!


right op?
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
From what I heard, you have to sign various waviers and agreements saying you are 18 ... the girls had to have lied...
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: amdforever2
OMG!

A STRAIGHT GUY
UNDERAGE GIRLS?


NONSENSE!

EVERYONE KNOWS ONLY GAYS DO THAT KIND OF SICK ******!


right op?

Funny, Brutuskend has contributed a LOT more to the forums than you...
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: amdforever2
OMG!

A STRAIGHT GUY
UNDERAGE GIRLS?


NONSENSE!

EVERYONE KNOWS ONLY GAYS DO THAT KIND OF SICK ******!


right op?

Funny, Brutuskend has contributed a LOT more to the forums than you...

A few days ago brutus had a post about gay men and child pornography ... you should read it.
 

AznAnarchy99

Lifer
Dec 6, 2004
14,695
117
106
wow such a big deal over 17/18. I mean its not like they were 12. The girls knew what they were doing and that they were doing it in front of the camera
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: SirStev0
From what I heard, you have to sign various waviers and agreements saying you are 18 ... the girls had to have lied...

That's the situation he put himself into... girls under 18 can't legally enter into a contract... So, if they're 18, and sign the contract, all is good.
If they're 17, and sign the contract, then it doesn't matter that they signed it; it's worthless paper.