PHOENIX – In June 2013, Phoenix police raided what they called a “self-serve porn studio” near Sky Harbor Airport, charging William James Hartwell and six women with various prostitution-related crimes.

Now, three and one-half years later, Hartwell’s trial is finally is poised to commence. As he has since the day of his arrest, Hartwell claims his operation was legally producing Constitutionally protected erotica, not engaging in prostitution.

“All sexual conduct that took place at the studio was for the purpose of exploring and expressing an individual’s sexuality via safe and legal adult content creation,” attorneys for Hartwell argue in court documents.

Naturally, the prosecutor sees things differently.

“Prosecuting the defendant and workers for crimes related to prostitution is lawful,” prosecutor Monica Sochaki countered in a filing.

As Hartwell tells it, his studio simply served as a pornographic enabler of sorts, renting its customers access to cameras, props, lighting and other equipment, as well as providing performing talent — women like those indicted alongside Hartwell.

According to investigators, in order to set up a session at Hartwell’s studio, men would respond to an online ad, but were provided with the address of the facility only after calling from a nearby gas station — an approach to casting male talent it’s probably safe to say is not taken by, say, Wicked Pictures or HUSTLER.

After receiving a tip about Hartwell’s operation, Phoenix police initiated a sting in conjunction with the FBI. Investigators sent informants posing as customers or would-be employees to gather more information. One informant allegedly told investigators that during her “job interview” it was explained to her that the studio provided customers with production space, condoms, cameras and a “free porn girl,” according to documents filed in the case.

Several of the women arrested have pleaded guilty and are expected to testify against Hartwell, who also faces two counts of sexual assault for allegedly attacking two women who didn’t want to work for him anymore.

On a website promoting the business, prospective customers were told they should not give money to anyone but a receptionist, and only for the purposes of renting equipment and paying studio fees. Investigators say the women were told they didn’t have to worry about being charged with prostitution because they would never actually handle any money, or otherwise directly take payment for sex.

Given the timing of the original investigation and arrest, many observers have drawn a connection between a statement issued by Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery in 2012, in which Montgomery warned porn producers not to think of Arizona as a good place to locate their businesses.

“Under Arizona law, anyone paid to appear in a pornographic movie may be guilty of the crime of prostitution, which carries mandatory jail time as well as the possibility of other penalties,” Montgomery’s office said in the statement.

The statement also asserted “anyone involved in other aspects of producing pornographic movies” may also be guilty of “committing one or several felonies in the state of Arizona.”

“Accordingly, Arizona law precludes the establishment of a ‘pornography industry’ to any degree such as that present in California,” Montgomery’s statement asserted.

It’s worth noting the last claim above from Montgomery’s press release is a notion to which the good people of New Hampshire probably once adhered, as well — until a pesky little case called New Hampshire v. Theriault came along. In that case, the state supreme court ruled pornography is not prostitution. As a consequence, New Hampshire is one of only two U.S. states in which filming pornography is explicitly legal. (The other is California.)

While the facts alleged in Hartwell’s indictment might sound damning on their face, anyone familiar with Theriault will tell you the facts didn’t sound too good for the defendant there, either. Should prosecutors in Arizona find themselves on the wrong end of the ruling in Hartwell’s case, Montgomery’s 2012 statement about Arizona law “precluding” the establishment of a porn industry in the state may well wind up appearing less prescient than ironic.