388 U.S. 452 (1967) A QUANTITY OF COPIES OF BOOKS ET AL. v. KANSAS. No. 865. Supreme Court of United States. Decided June 12, 1967. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS. Stanley Fleishman for petitioners. Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General of Kansas, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kansas is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. THE CHIEF JUSTICE would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument in light of A Quantity of […]

READ MORE


378 U.S. 205 (1964) A QUANTITY OF COPIES OF BOOKS ET AL. v. KANSAS.   No. 449. Supreme Court of United States.   Argued April 1-2, 1964. Decided June 22, 1964. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.*206 Stanley Fleishman argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Sam Rosenwein. William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Rober E. Hoffman, J. Richard Foth and Richard H. Seaton, Assistant Attorneys General of Kansas, and William Clement. The following State Attorneys General joined in the brief for appellee: […]

READ MORE


No. 55 (hereafter Mail Box) draws into question the constitutionality of 39 U. S. C. § 4006 (now 39 U. S. C. § 3006, Postal Reorganization Act,[†] 84 Stat. 747), under *412 which the Postmaster General, following administrative hearings, may halt use of the mails and of postal money orders for commerce in allegedly obscene materials. No. 58 (hereafter Book Bin) also draws into question the constitutionality of § 4006, and, in addition, the constitutionality of 39 U. S. C. § 4007 (now 39 U. S. C. § 3007), 84 Stat. 748, under which the Postmaster General may obtain a court order permitting him to detain the defendant's incoming mail pending the outcome of § 4006 proceedings against him.

READ MORE


On March 5, 1971, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California indicted petitioners William L. Hamling, Earl Kemp, Shirley R. Wright, David L. Thomas, Reed Enterprises, Inc., and Library Service, Inc., on 21 counts of an indictment charging use of the mails to carry an obscene book, The Illustrated Presidential Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, and an obscene advertisement, which gave information as to where, how, and from whom and by what means the Illustrated Report might be obtained, and of conspiracy to commit the above offenses, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 2, 371, and 1461.[1] Prior to trial, petitioners moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it failed to inform them of the charges, and that the grand jury had insufficient evidence before it to return an indictment and was improperly instructed on the law. Petitioners also challenged the petit jury panel and moved to strike the venire on the ground that there had been an unconstitutional exclusion of all persons under 25 years of age. The District Court denied all of these motions.

READ MORE


We granted certiorari to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to review the petitioner's conviction for violation of California statutes regarding obscenity.

READ MORE


391 U.S. 462 (1968) RABECK v. NEW YORK. No. 611. Supreme Court of United States. Decided May 27, 1968. APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Stanley Fleishman, Osmond K. Fraenkel, and Sam Rosenwein for appellant. Isidore Dollinger and Daniel J. Sullivan for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant, in seeking reversal of his conviction for selling “girlie” magazines to a minor under 18 years of age in violation of former § 484-i, New York Penal Law,[*] argues among other grounds that the statute is impermissibly vague. We agree. While we rejected a like […]

READ MORE


The constitutionality of a criminal obscenity statute is the question in each of these cases. In Roth, the primary constitutional question is whether the federal obscenity statute[1] violates the provision of the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ." In Alberts, the primary constitutional question is whether the obscenity provisions of the California Penal Code[2] invade the freedoms of speech and press as they may be incorporated in *480 the liberty protected from state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

READ MORE


Appellant, the proprietor of a bookstore, was convicted in a California Municipal Court under a Los Angeles City ordinance which makes it unlawful "for any person to have in his possession any obscene or indecent writing. [or] book . . . [i]n any place of business where . . . books . . . are sold or kept for sale."[1] The offense was defined by the Municipal Court, and by the Appellate *149 Department of the Superior Court,[2] which affirmed the Municipal Court judgment imposing a jail sentence on appellant, as consisting solely of the possession, in the appellant's bookstore, of a certain book found upon judicial investigation to be obscene. The definition included no element of scienter—knowledge by appellant of the contents of the book—and thus the ordinance was construed as imposing a "strict" or "absolute" criminal liability.[3] The appellant made timely objection below that if the ordinance were so construed it would be in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. This contention, together with other contentions based on the Constitution,[4] was rejected, and the case comes here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2); 358 U. S. 926.

READ MORE


402 U.S. 363 (1971) UNITED STATES v. THIRTY-SEVEN (37) PHOTOGRAPHS (LUROS, CLAIMANT). No. 133. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 20, 1971 Decided May 3, 1971 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. *364 Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Wilson and Roger A. Pauley. Stanley Fleishman argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Sam Rosenwein. *365 MR. JUSTICE WHITE announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE […]

READ MORE