District Attorney v. 355 Publications

When the district attorney brought an action in the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 272, § 28C, seeking to have 355 identified books adjudicated as obscene, the defendant, Capital Video Corp. (Capital), filed an answer claiming to be a party interested in the dissemination of the publications.2 In its answer, Capital denied that the books *67are obscene but acknowledged that they had been seized from a Springfield store operated by it, demanded a jury trial, and raised various constitutional issues.3 After cross motions for summary judgment on the constitutional issues were decided in the…