Strangest piece of evidence in courtroom

In 1983, an unusual scene took place in court in Florida. Three female dancers were on trial. Undercover investigators had allegedly observed the women showing “too much” while working in a nightclub.

The charge was indecency.

The dancers had violated a county ordinance that prohibits nudity in places where food and drink are served. The women’s attorney pointed out to the judge that the women’s panties had been too large to reveal the body parts that the undercover police officers claimed to have seen.

So the lawyer asked that his clients be allowed to show the dance. The judge refused to allow a dance demonstration in chambers, fearing for his rather young career, but allowed a demonstration in court. He later said that he had not expected the women to follow through with this in court.

The court photographer’s picture shows what happened that day in a courtroom. Two of the three women turned around in front of the judge and presented their rear ends to him. The judge then ruled that their panties were indeed of sufficient size. This unusual evidence exonerated the dancers.

In Uganda it does not apply, an alternative law known as indecent assault, which even seems to protect females, exists. Section 128 about Indecent Assault, “any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults any woman or girl commits a felony and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years with or without corporal punishment.

However, there is Anti-Pornography Law, Anti-Pornography Act, 2014 (Act 1 of 2014) the sections prohibit, among other things, producing, publishing, or broadcasting any form of pornography, or participation in such activities. They carry a maximum fine of UGX 10,000,000 (approx. 2,832 USD) or a maximum prison sentence of 10 years, or both. Unfortunately,  Court declared anti-pornography law unconstitutional.