## Facts

- Garry Layne Ragsdale (a Dallas police officer) and his wife, Tamara Michelle Ragsdale, operated an online business selling rape-themed pornographic videotapes.
- A complaint about the website “Rape Video Store,” advertising “actual rapes,” prompted an investigation by a Dallas detective using an undercover identity.
- The detective ordered and received eight videotapes sold by the site; two tapes (“Brutally Raped 5” and “Real Rape 1”) formed the basis of the obscenity charges.
- “Brutally Raped 5” depicted prolonged, explicit sexual acts combined with humiliation and torture-like conduct; “Real Rape 1” depicted an extended sexual assault framed as nonconsensual.
- Federal agents executed a search warrant at the Ragsdales’ home and stopped their car as they left, finding packages of videotapes they admitted they were going to mail.
- Garry waived Miranda rights and admitted he owned and managed a company that sold pornographic videos, including the charged tapes.
- The government charged both defendants with conspiracy and with mailing obscene material and aiding and abetting under federal obscenity statutes.
- At trial, the defendants admitted selling the tapes but denied they were legally obscene; a defense expert testified the tapes did not offend community standards and had scientific value.
- The prosecution relied primarily on the videotapes themselves rather than expert testimony.
- A jury convicted both defendants on all counts; Garry received 33 months’ imprisonment and Tamara received 30 months.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find the videotapes obscene under the three-part test of *Miller v. California*.
2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1461 (mailing obscene matter) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied (including First Amendment, vagueness, overbreadth, and privacy-based challenges).
3. Whether the district court erred in applying the Sentencing Guidelines, including counting the number of obscene “items” and related adjustments.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find the tapes obscene under *Miller*.
- The court rejected the argument that the government was required to present expert testimony and held the jury could assess obscenity by viewing the works and considering their marketing and distribution.
- The court upheld 18 U.S.C. § 1461 as constitutional, concluding the statute—construed through the *Miller* definition of obscenity—was neither vague nor overbroad and did not violate protected speech or privacy rights.
- The court found no reversible sentencing error and upheld the district court’s guideline calculations.

## Legal Principles

- Obscenity is determined under *Miller*: (1) appeal to prurient interest under contemporary community standards, (2) patent offensiveness in depicting sexual conduct, and (3) lack of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value when taken as a whole.
- On appellate review of sufficiency, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence viewed in favor of the verdict.
- The work itself is direct evidence of obscenity; expert testimony is not categorically required, and the jury may reject expert opinions after viewing the material.
- Federal prohibitions on commercial distribution of obscene matter through the mails under 18 U.S.C. § 1461 are constitutional because obscene material, as defined by *Miller*, is not protected by the First Amendment.
- Privacy protections for private possession of obscene material do not bar federal regulation of commercial mailing and distribution.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Ragsdales’ convictions for conspiring to mail and for mailing obscene videotapes, holding the tapes and their marketing provided sufficient evidence for a jury to find obscenity under *Miller*, and it sustained the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 and the imposed sentences.


United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 2005)