This is an interesting story on multiple levels.
First of all, it brushes up against one of the oldest questions in the sociology of art. Does art mirror reality, or does reality mirror art? There will be trendy counter-culture types debating that a thousand years from now...
In the Globe and Mail story we are led to believe that the state was arguing that life imitates art. Magnotta saw Basic Instinct a couple of times (did he?) and presto, some guy is having his corpse sawed into easily disposable pieces.
Having the jury watch Basic Instinct would accomplish what exactly?
Anybody who is moved to kill and dismember somebody because they watched a movie is obviously a nutter, which would advance Magnotta's case, not the crowns.
Magnotta's defence is exactly that. I'm not guilty 'cause I'm a nutter, and that's what we do.
I thought the judge has some chops as a film critic. Maybe he can pursue a new vocation when he gives up the judgey chair. Frankly, "It bored me so much I fell asleep" is one of the most succinct reviews of Basic Instinct that I've ever read.