418 U.S. 932 (1974), 73-1091, Thevis v. United States

Docket Nº:No. 73-1091.
Citation:418 U.S. 932, 94 S.Ct. 3222, 41 L.Ed.2d 1170
Party Name:Michael G. THEVIS v. UNITED STATES. No. 73-1075. PEACHTREE NEWS COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES.
Case Date:July 25, 1974
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 932

418 U.S. 932 (1974)

94 S.Ct. 3222, 41 L.Ed.2d 1170

Michael G. THEVIS

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 73-1075.

PEACHTREE NEWS COMPANY, INC.

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 73-1091.

United States Supreme Court.

July 25, 1974

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1974.

See 419 U.S. 886, 887, 95 S.Ct. 158, 162.

Facts and opinion, D.C., 329 F.Supp. 265; 484 F.2d 1149; 486 F.2d 1403.

OPINION

[94 S.Ct. 322] On petition for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.

Petitioners were convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on charges of using a common carrier for carriage of allegedly obscene

Page 933

matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462, which provides in pertinent part as follows:

'Whoever . . . knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce----

'(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character.

* * *

'Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both . . ..'

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions on six counts.

I adhere to my dissent in United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 147, 93 S.Ct. 2674, 37 L.Ed.2d 513, in which, speaking of 18 U.S.C. § 1462, I expressed the view that '[w]hatever the extent of the Federal Government's power to bar the distribution of allegedly obscene material to juveniles or the offensive exposure of such material to unconsenting adults, the statute before us is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.' Id., at 147-148, 93 S.Ct. 2674. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 47, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, and, since the judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit were rendered after Orito, reverse.' [*]

[94 S.Ct. 3223] In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 494, 93 S.Ct. 2789, 37 L.Ed.2d 745...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP