Judge Considering Re-Trial for Girls Gone Wild Suit

Thumbnail image for jane7.jpg
"Jane Doe" as she appears in a Sorority Girl Orgy dvd.
The woman whose top was pulled down during a Girls Gone Wild scene shot in a St. Louis nightclub is asking a judge for a re-trial in her lawsuit against video company Mantra Films. In July a St. Louis Circuit Court jury rejected the woman's claim for $5 million in damages for her appearance in the film.

Yesterday Stephen Evans, the attorney for plaintiff "Jane Doe," made his case for a re-trial before Judge John Riley. This morning Evans tells Daily RFT that the jury's decision was "so inconsistent with the actual facts" that it demands a re-trial. In his motion for a re-trial Evans argues:

"There is no competent evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that by dancing in front of the camera the plaintiff "knowingly agreed" to have images of her bare breasts placed on the Sorority Orgy DVDs that contain hard core pornographic images and scenes."

Jane Doe was 20 years old back in 2004 when Mantra Films arrived at the former Rum Jungle in Laclede's Landing to shoot video. In a scene from the company's Girls Gone Wild: Sorority Girl Orgy (reviewed by Daily RFT), Doe appears dancing in front of the camera and playfully grabbing hold of her breasts. She then mouths the words "I can't" before an unidentified female enters the picture and pulls down Doe's top revealing her nipples. The entire scene involving Jane Doe lasts approximately 20 seconds in a film that's over one hour in length.

Thumbnail image for girlsgonewildsororityorgy.jpg
Doe, now 26 and the mother of two, found out she was in the film when one of her husband's friends called him to deliver the news. Doe contends that she never agreed to appear in the movie and never signed a release form allowing Mantra to use her in the film.

The jury, however, believed Doe's antics in front of the camera gave the filmmakers "implied consent." "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing," said jury foreman Patrick O'Brien.

As Evans alludes in court filings, the film does contain graphic images of sex in addition to the comparably PG images of women flashing their boobs for the camera. Curiously, Evans motion for re-trial also names the woman who actually pulled down Doe's top during the filming of the shoot and who was never named as a defendant in the case. That woman is Crystal McDaniel Mincemeyer.

Testifying in the original trial, Mincemeyer backed the claim from Mantra Films that it posted "area releases" inside Rum Jungle notifying patrons of the filming. Evans, however, disputes that such notifications were present.

Judge Riley has until November 5 to make a decision. Should Riley not grant a re-trial, Evans tells Daily RFT he'll ask Missouri Court of Appeals to consider the case.

Sponsor Content

Now Trending

404 Not Found

Not Found

The requested URL /seo/aroundTheWeb/ was not found on this server.

From the Vault