18 U.S.C. § 1461

37 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Linetsky
  533 F.2d 192· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that double jeopardy and collateral estoppel did not bar prosecution for mailings of obscene materials, as the prior California ruling was not a valid acquittal on the merits. Convictions on two counts were reversed due to the materials not meeting obscenity standa
• United States v. Womack
  509 F.2d 368· D.C. Cir.· 1972-12-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding comparison evidence and that the search warrant was valid. The court also affirmed convictions based on the Miller obscenity tests.
• Flying Eagle Publ'ns, Inc. v. United States
  273 F.2d 799· 1st Cir.· 1960-01-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while the indictment was sufficient, the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider all six submitted stories as potentially obscene, when only one novelette and one illustration met the legal standard.
• Reed Enters. v. The Honorable Howard F. Corcoran
  354 F.2d 519· D.C. Cir.· 1965-12-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that petitioners' complaints raised substantial constitutional questions and allegations of irreparable harm, requiring the convening of three-judge district courts to hear the challenge to the 1958 amendment of obscenity statutes.
• United States v. Cutting
  538 F.2d 835· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-16 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Johnson
  855 F.2d 299· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plain language and legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 indicate that the 'knowingly causes to be delivered' provision applies only to senders of obscene material, not to recipients who order it for personal use.
• United States v. Miller
  455 F.2d 899· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that all convictions for mailing obscene matter under 18 U.S.C. § 1461 were valid, affirming the judgment against the appellant.
• Heath v. United States
  375 F.2d 521· 8th Cir.· 1967-04-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a sentence within statutory limits is not subject to appellate review, and a guilty plea to an indictment charging mailing of a lewd letter covers private correspondence under the statute.
• Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry
  276 F.2d 433· 2d Cir.· 1960-03-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Postmaster-General's decision to bar the book from the mails was subject to judicial review, and that contemporary judicial standards should be applied.
• United States v. Palladino
  475 F.2d 65· 1st Cir.· 1973-02-22 ·cited 14×
  The court, following precedent, affirmed the lower court's decision regarding obscenity standards, though judges expressed reservations about the current legal framework.
• United States v. Petrov
  747 F.2d 824· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that expert testimony is not required to establish the prurient appeal of photographs depicting bestiality, and affirmed convictions on counts 7 and 9.
• Forest James Ackerman v. United States
  293 F.2d 449· 9th Cir.· 1961-08-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the 'average person' standard for obscenity, as established in Roth v. United States, applies to non-commercial private correspondence, and the evidence supported the finding that the letters appealed to prurient interest.
• Heinecke v. United States
  294 F.2d 727· D.C. Cir.· 1961-07-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while a judge's comment on obscenity was improper, it did not constitute a reversible error given the jury instructions as a whole. The court affirmed the conviction based on concurrent sentences, rendering the validity of other convictions moot.
• United States v. Keller
  259 F.2d 54· 3d Cir.· 1958-09-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the language used on the postal cards, while potentially vulgar, did not meet the 'prurient interest' standard for obscenity under the Roth test, and therefore did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1463.
• United States v. Hornick
  229 F.2d 120· 3d Cir.· 1956-01-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that advertising or providing information on how to obtain obscene matter through the mail constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, regardless of whether the advertised material itself is obscene or the advertisements are truthful.
• Schindler v. United States
  208 F.2d 289· 9th Cir.· 1953-11-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that evidence of reliance on an attorney's advice is inadmissible to prove lack of knowledge of obscenity, and that the booklet was obscene.
• United States v. Miller
  505 F.2d 1247· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-06 ·cited 8×
  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.
• United States v. Freeman B. Young
  465 F.2d 1096· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the materials were legally obscene and the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, affirming the lower court's judgment.
• Manual Enters., Inc. v. DAY
  289 F.2d 455· D.C. Cir.· 1961-03-23 ·cited 8×
• Flying Eagle Publ'ns, Inc. v. United States
  285 F.2d 307· 1st Cir.· 1961-01-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that informing the jury that co-defendants were acquitted did not imply the conviction of the remaining defendants, and that illustrations can be judged independently of accompanying text.
• United States v. Gantzer
  810 F.2d 349· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The constitutional right to view obscene materials privately does not insulate a defendant from conviction for mailing obscene materials for private use.
• United States v. Pinkus
  551 F.2d 1155· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that jury instructions regarding community standards, deviant sexual groups, and pandering were not reversible error, and the refusal to admit comparable films was also not reversible error due to the concurrent sentence doctrine.
• United States v. Davis
  353 F.2d 614· 2d Cir.· 1965-12-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the phonograph records and labels were obscene and not entitled to First Amendment protection.
• Thomas v. United States
  262 F.2d 844· 6th Cir.· 1959-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 1955 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 1461 did not remove private letters from its prohibition against mailing obscene matter, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• Verner v. United States
  183 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1950-06-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the mailing of lewd and filthy letters, regardless of the recipients' actual reaction or the sender's personal motive, constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461.
• United States v. Easley
  927 F.2d 1442· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's jury instructions on obscenity were proper and that the statute 18 U.S.C. § 1461 is not facially invalid. The court also rejected claims of double jeopardy.
• United States v. Kuennen
  901 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant 'caused' the use of the mails for delivery of obscene material, even though intercepted and delayed, and that venue was proper. Constitutional and evidentiary challenges were also rejected.
• United States v. Elkins
  556 F.2d 978· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendants' conduct, occurring before the Miller v. California decision, should be judged by the pre-Miller standards (Roth and Memoirs), not the stricter Miller standards, and that applying these earlier standards does not violate due process.
• Collier v. United States
  283 F.2d 780· 4th Cir.· 1960-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the pictures mailed by the defendant were obscene under the statute and that the statute was constitutional, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Ewing
  491 F.2d 714· 10th Cir.· 1974-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. California and related cases require a reexamination of the facts and applicable standards for obscenity cases under federal law. The trial court must initially determine these standards.
• United States v. Shumway
  911 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-14
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove Shumway knowingly used the mails for mailing obscene matter, as the government failed to establish she knew at the time of making the tapes that mailing them would be a natural and probable consequence.