United States v. Amirault - Revision history

Etenne at 13:47, 23 March 2015

2015-03-23T13:47:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:47, 23 March 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''United States v. Amirault''}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''United States v. Amirault''}}{{Law icon}}
	'''''[[United States v. Amirault]]''''' was a 1999 case in which the [[First Circuit]] noted that whether the photograph is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response from the viewer "is the most confusing and contentious of the ''[[Dost]]'' factors." The court further noted:<ref>{{cite court\|litigants=United States v. Amirault\|vol=173\|reporter=F.3d\|opinion=28\|date=1999\|url=http://leagle.com/decision/1999201173F3d28_1197.xml/U.S.%20v.%20AMIRAULT}}</ref>		'''''[[United States v. Amirault]]''''' was a 1999 case in which the [[First Circuit]] noted that whether the photograph is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response from the viewer "is the most confusing and contentious of the ''[[Dost]]'' factors." The court further noted:<ref>{{cite court\|litigants=United States v. Amirault\|vol=173\|reporter=F.3d\|opinion=28\|date=1999\|url=http://leagle.com/decision/1999201173F3d28_1197.xml/U.S.%20v.%20AMIRAULT}}</ref>
	{{cquote\|Is this a subjective or objective standard, and should we be evaluating the response of an average viewer or the specific defendant in this case? Moreover, is the intent to elicit a sexual response analyzed from the perspective of the photograph's composition, or from extrinsic evidence (such as where the photograph was obtained, who the photographer was, etc.)?		{{cquote\|Is this a subjective or objective standard, and should we be evaluating the response of an average viewer or the specific defendant in this case? Moreover, is the intent to elicit a sexual response analyzed from the perspective of the photograph's composition, or from extrinsic evidence (such as where the photograph was obtained, who the photographer was, etc.)?
Line 9:		Line 9:
	==References==		==References==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}
			[[Category:Law/case law]]

Lysander: Template:Infobox court case doesn't work; it needs Scribunto

2015-03-20T22:08:02Z

Template:Infobox court case doesn't work; it needs Scribunto

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{DISPLAYTITLE:''United States v. Amirault''}}
 '''''[[United States v. Amirault]]''''' was a 1999 case in which the [[First Circuit]] noted that whether the photograph is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response from the viewer "is the most confusing and contentious of the ''[[Dost]]'' factors." The court further noted:<ref>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. Amirault|vol=173|reporter=F.3d|opinion=28|date=1999|url=http://leagle.com/decision/1999201173F3d28_1197.xml/U.S.%20v.%20AMIRAULT}}</ref>
 {{cquote|Is this a subjective or objective standard, and should we be evaluating the response of an average viewer or the specific defendant in this case? Moreover, is the intent to elicit a sexual response analyzed from the perspective of the photograph's composition, or from extrinsic evidence (such as where the photograph was obtained, who the photographer was, etc.)?

Lysander at 22:05, 20 March 2015

2015-03-20T22:05:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:05, 20 March 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{DISPLAYTITLE:''United States v. Amirault''}}
	{{Infobox court case		{{Infobox court case
	\|name = United States v. Amirault		\|name = United States v. Amirault
Line 27:		Line 28:
	\|ECLI =		\|ECLI =
	}}		}}
	~~{{PageSummary\|~~'''''[[United States v. Amirault]]''''' was a 1999 case in which the [[First Circuit]] noted that whether the photograph is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response from the viewer "is the most confusing and contentious of the ''[[Dost]]'' factors."}} The court further noted:<ref>{{cite court\|litigants=United States v. Amirault\|vol=173\|reporter=F.3d\|opinion=28\|date=1999\|url=http://leagle.com/decision/1999201173F3d28_1197.xml/U.S.%20v.%20AMIRAULT}}</ref>		'''''[[United States v. Amirault]]''''' was a 1999 case in which the [[First Circuit]] noted that whether the photograph is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response from the viewer "is the most confusing and contentious of the ''[[Dost]]'' factors." The court further noted:<ref>{{cite court\|litigants=United States v. Amirault\|vol=173\|reporter=F.3d\|opinion=28\|date=1999\|url=http://leagle.com/decision/1999201173F3d28_1197.xml/U.S.%20v.%20AMIRAULT}}</ref>
	{{cquote\|Is this a subjective or objective standard, and should we be evaluating the response of an average viewer or the specific defendant in this case? Moreover, is the intent to elicit a sexual response analyzed from the perspective of the photograph's composition, or from extrinsic evidence (such as where the photograph was obtained, who the photographer was, etc.)?		{{cquote\|Is this a subjective or objective standard, and should we be evaluating the response of an average viewer or the specific defendant in this case? Moreover, is the intent to elicit a sexual response analyzed from the perspective of the photograph's composition, or from extrinsic evidence (such as where the photograph was obtained, who the photographer was, etc.)?

Lysander: Created page with "{{Infobox court case |name = United States v. Amirault |court = United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit |image = |ima..."

2015-03-20T22:04:47Z

Created page with "{{Infobox court case |name = United States v. Amirault |court = United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit |image = |ima..."

New page

{{Infobox court case
|name = United States v. Amirault
|court = [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]]
|image =
|imagesize =
|imagelink =
|imagealt =
|caption =
|full name =
|date decided = 
|citations = 173 F.3d 28
|transcripts =
|judges = [[Norman H. Stahl]], [[Bailey Aldrich]], and [[Levin H. Campbell]]
|number of judges =
|decision by = [[Norman H. Stahl]]
|concurring =
|dissenting =
|concur/dissent =
|prior actions = [[United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire]] imposed a sentence of 60 months imprisonment
|appealed from =
|appealed to =
|subsequent actions =
|related actions =
|opinions =
|keywords = 
|italic title =
|ECLI =
}}
{{PageSummary|'''''[[United States v. Amirault]]''''' was a 1999 case in which the [[First Circuit]] noted that whether the photograph is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response from the viewer "is the most confusing and contentious of the ''[[Dost]]'' factors."}} The court further noted:<ref>{{cite court|litigants=United States v. Amirault|vol=173|reporter=F.3d|opinion=28|date=1999|url=http://leagle.com/decision/1999201173F3d28_1197.xml/U.S.%20v.%20AMIRAULT}}</ref>
{{cquote|Is this a subjective or objective standard, and should we be evaluating the response of an average viewer or the specific defendant in this case? Moreover, is the intent to elicit a sexual response analyzed from the perspective of the photograph's composition, or from extrinsic evidence (such as where the photograph was obtained, who the photographer was, etc.)?

In its brief, the government suggests that the subjective reaction of the defendant is significant. Correspondingly, the government contends that Amirault's admission that he obtained the photograph because he found it erotic amounted to a concession that the photograph is sexually explicit.

We believe, however, that it is a mistake to look at the actual effect of the photograph on the viewer, rather than upon the intended effect. See ''[[Villard]]'', 885 F.2d at 125. If Amirault's subjective reaction were relevant, a sexual deviant's quirks could turn a Sears catalog into pornography. See id.; ''[[Wiegand]]'', 812 F.2d at 1245 ("Private fantasies are not within the statute's ambit.").}}

==References==
{{reflist}}