Michael Jackson, accused of same sex child molestation, owns
photographs of naked boys; the judge will determine if the photos are
admissable as evidence of his predisposition.  If Jackson also owns
photos or paintings of naked women or of heterosexual acts, would the
defense have the right to place those in evidence? I'm interested in
the SELECTION of evidence by prosecutors, which one juror in the
current Philadelphia trial of a city official has objected to.

Even if they were permitted, would the defense WANT to admit such evidence? 
Seems like it serves the prosecution just as well to paint him as an
equal oportunity "pervert" rather then just a specialized "pervert".