UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MARVIN MILLER ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reaffirmed the convictions, holding that the materials were obscene under the current definition and that the relevant statute was not void for vagueness.
Defendants were convicted of mailing obscene matter. The Supreme Court vacated the prior judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of new obs…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mailing Obscene Matter cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The Supreme Court, on June 25, 1973, vacated the judgment in the above case and remanded it to this court for reconsideration. 413 U.S. 913, 93 S.Ct. 3030, 37 L.Ed.2d 1022.
We reaffirm the convictions and adopt our previously reported opinion in 455 F. 2d 899, on the authority of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) and Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974).
The materials in question are clearly obscene. If they were obscene under the old definition set forth in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 86 S.Ct. 975, 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966), it follows that they were obscene under the new broader definition of obscenity set forth in Miller v. California, supra.
The defendants’ contention that 18 U.S.C. § 1461 (mailing obscene matter) is void for vagueness was decisively rejected in Hamling, supra, 418 U.S. at 16-118, 94 S.Ct. at 2908. The question of whether a local or a national standard should be applied in this federal prosecution was not raised below or on appeal. Expert testimony was introduced by the Government to the effect that the content of the picture magazines and the books appeals to a prurient interest and that the books contained no social redeeming value. The testimony did not indicate whether it was based on a local or a national standard.
In Hamling, supra, the Supreme Court rejected the position of the First Circuit (see, e. g., United States v. Pal- ladino, 490 F. 2d 499 (1973)) that a national standard must be applied in federal obscenity prosecutions. To the contrary the Court accepted the use of “contemporary community standards” without defining the geographical limits of that community.
Miller, supra, and Hamling, supra, having resolved all of defendants’ contentions on appeal against them, their convictions are reaffirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. United States, 422 U.S. 1024 (U.S. 1975)
-
United States v. Danley, 523 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1975)
-
United States v. Henson, 513 F.2d 156 (9th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1974)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1973)
- A Book Named "john Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1966)
- Miller v. United States, 413 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1973)
- United States v. Palladino, 490 F.2d 499 (1st Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Miller, 455 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1972)