Controversial Test Case : Sex-Film Maker Convicted Under ’82 Pandering Law

In a controversial test case, a Van Nuys jury found an Encino producer of hard-core sex films guilty of pandering Wednesday, making him the first film maker convicted in California under a law that mandates a three-year prison sentence for hiring people to perform sex acts.

Prosecutors contended that women hired to perform in a 90-minute movie, “Caught from Behind, Part II,” are prostitutes because they were paid to perform sex acts. Film maker Harold Freeman said throughout the six-day trial that the women are actresses.

The prosecution of Freeman angered producers in Los Angeles’ $550-million sex film industry and prompted concerns in Hollywood that such a prosecution might someday be extended to less sexually explicit films.

Freeman, 49, was arrested in October, 1983, and charged with five counts of violating the state’s 1982 “anti-pimp” law, under which anyone who procures another person to engage in sex is guilty of pandering.

“I will appeal and appeal and appeal until we get to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Freeman said upon hearing the verdict of the five-man, seven-woman jury in Van Nuys Superior Court.

Freeman estimated that he has produced more than 100 full-length sex films since 1968.

Superior Court Judge James Albracht scheduled sentencing of Freeman for July 15. Freeman, who is free on his own recognizance, faces at least the mandatory three-year sentence and a maximum term of six years on each count.

Freeman’s attorney, Stuart Goldfarb, said he will file an immediate notice of appeal.

Although Freeman’s sexually explicit film was not shown during the trial, jurors were read segments of its brief script. They also heard graphic testimony from five women who performed in the film.

“We concluded that the acting was secondary and that the sex was primary,” jury foreman Joan Keller said after the verdict. “The girls were hired for sex.”

Films by Major Studios

Prosecutors and police vice officers vigorously denied that films released by major studios that contain sex scenes would be affected by Wednesday’s verdict. Only if actors perform actual sex acts, instead of simulating the acts, could producers be charged with pandering, Deputy Dist. Atty. Burton J. Schneirow said.

“There has to be actual sexual intercourse, or a lewd act, which includes many things,” Schneirow said. “But mere fondling of a breast or buttocks, for example, would not likely be construed as a lewd act.”

“We are not going after R-rated movies, unless there is an actual explicit sex scene,” said Lt. Dennis Conte, who supervised police work on the case. “It’s a smoke screen the adult film makers are putting up. These movies that film makers like Freeman are producing have actual raw sex in them, and the actresses are hired specifically for that purpose. That’s against the law.”

Wednesday’s verdict prompted angry reaction from a leader of the sex-film industry.

“We’re all affected by this decision,” said Richard Aldrich, president of West Coast Producers Assn, a group that represents about 40 producers of sexually explicit films. “I’m not going to put myself in jeopardy.

Characterizes Movies

Aldrich, who describes his films as pornographic, said vice officers arrested Freeman because the “police can’t bust us on obscenity charges, so they’re going after us on this pimping law.”

Aldrich, who estimates that he has made 30 full-length movies, said he stopped making such movies nine months ago after Freeman appeared at a preliminary hearing in Van Nuys and was charged with pandering. “The law is being arbitrarily applied, and it’s shocking. It’s damn scary.”

The law under which Freeman was convicted was introduced by state Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) and was designed to facilitate prosecution of pimps. Roberti’s district includes Hollywood and Sunset boulevards, where prostitution is rampant.

In an interview during the trial, Freeman defended his films as legitimate examples of artistic expression in which serious acting is required. “In my movies, there is more dialogue, more acting than there is sex,” he said. “However, when they are edited, sex becomes the major part.

“I don’t like being called a pimp,” Freeman said. “These girls know what they are getting into. I show them a script and they know what is expected of them.”

Three Days to Shoot

He said most of his 90-minute movies are filmed within three days, with actresses paid from $200 to $800 a day. “Caught From Behind, Part II,” he said, was filmed at a private home in Rancho Palos Verdes.

A sequel to the film, he said, will be released June 7 and is scheduled to be distributed throughout the country. Freeman said that he has already contracted a scriptwriter who is working on “Caught from Behind, Part IV” but that he plans to film that sequel in San Francisco. Authorities there are less strict about enforcing the Roberti pandering law, he said.

Freeman’s wife, Jean, the bookkeeper at his Sepulveda-based business, Hollywood Video, bowed her head and cried as the clerk read the jury’s verdict Wednesday.

“I have nothing to do with pimping and pandering,” she said. “I’m not a madam. This whole court trial is an insult to us. My husband makes films, and anyone who wants to see them can.” She was not a defendant in the case.

In closing arguments of the trial, Deputy Dist. Atty. Schneirow said that obscenity was not at issue.

Pandering Issue

“The content of the film is not in dispute,” he said. “The question is simple. Every person who procures the services of another person for sex is guilty of pandering, whether the act is filmed or not.

“We aren’t talking about Academy Award performances,” he said. “This wasn’t Hamlet’s soliloquy. The defendant is no different from the man with the floppy hat and the purple car on the street with a stable of girls.”

Freeman’s attorney argued that closing down sexually explicit film making would have a chilling effect on civil liberties. “More than 54 million people rented adult films last year,” Goldfarb said. “The ruling isn’t going to stop the adult film industry. No way. We will fight it till we get to the Supreme Court.”