Is it child porn if she’s married?

BY MICHAEL MARTZ

Media General News Service
Published: May 16, 2008

A Richmond strip-club owner says he can’t be prosecuted for producing child pornography for filming sex with a 17-year-old girl for a simple reason:

She isn’t a child. She’s a married woman.

Samuel J.T. Moore III has asked a Richmond court to dismiss all charges against him for filming sex with the girl, who was married and two months shy of her 18th birthday when the encounter occurred last winter in his residence above Club Velvet in Shockoe Bottom.

Michael Morchower, Moore’s defense attorney, argued in motions filed yesterday that the girl was emancipated from laws governing minors, so Moore could not be lawfully convicted of having sex with a minor, filming it unlawfully or producing child pornography in the process.

“Marriage can emancipate a minor,“ Morchower states. “Once emancipated, a minor basically has many of the same rights as an adult.“

Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael N. Herring responded that marriage doesn’t necessarily emancipate a minor and it certainly doesn’t free adults to commit crimes against one.

“She can’t consent if it’s pornography because of her age,“ Herring said. “Her emancipation doesn’t consent for her to be a porn star.“

Yesterday’s defense motions raise the stakes in a hearing next Thursday in Richmond Circuit Court. The hearing will consider motions before the trial, which is scheduled for June 26-27 before Judge Beverly W. Snukals.

Morchower launched a series of attacks on the prosecution’s case, demanding a copy of the videotape of the sexual encounter and asking the court to suppress the video and any other evidence seized in what he called an illegal search of the strip club early Feb. 24.

Moore was arrested during the search, which involved local, state and federal law-enforcement officers seeking evidence of prostitution, illegal drugs and public nudity. The search included agents for the Internal Revenue Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which Morchower argues were not named in the search warrant and not legally involved.

He also argued that the multijurisdictional grand jury that conducted the investigation exceeded its authority under state law, which does not give specific power to investigate any of the potential crimes other than illegal drug use.

No charges have resulted from the broad investigation, but Herring said yesterday, “We are not finished.“

The criminal charges against Moore arose from an encounter more than two nights before the search. Prosecutors say Moore had sex with the 17-year-old girl and an 18-year-old woman, filming it without their knowledge or consent.

Morchower says the girl told Moore she was 18, and he did not knowingly engage in illegal acts with a minor.

The case began in Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court with two misdemeanor charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but the prosecution decided to pursue more serious charges instead in Circuit Court.

Prosecutors used an unusual criminal information filing, followed by grand jury indictments, to bring felony charges against Moore in Circuit Court for producing child pornography and unlawfully filming sex with a minor.

He also is charged with unlawfully filming sex with an adult, a misdemeanor, as well as the two delinquency charges.

Michael Martz is a staff writer for the Richmond Times-Dispatch.