Groner v. United States
| Decision Date | 11 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1932,73-1932 |
| Parties | William GRONER, dba Lucky Distributors v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas of using a com- mon carrier in interstate commerce for carriage of allegedly obscene 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 Court affirmed the conviction, 479 F.2d 577 (CA5 1973) (en banc), and this Court vacated the judgment of that court and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), and companion cases. On remand, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed the conviction. 494 F.2d 499 (CA5 1974).
I adhere to my dissent in United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 147, 93 S.Ct. 2674, 37 L.Ed.2d 513 (1973), 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, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, and, since the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was rendered after Orito, reverse.* 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 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508-514, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498; Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 42-47, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Shipps
... ... argued that the police action violated his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights because Murphy knew the ... ...
-
U.S. v. Jefferson
... Page 689 ... 714 F.2d 689 ... 13 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1868 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Dorothy JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant ... No ... ...
-
State v. Goff
... ... The United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Bagnell
...in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. at 15, 93 S.Ct. at 2607), adhered to, 494 F.2d 499 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1010, 95 S.Ct. 331, 42 L.Ed.2d 285 (1974). Nonetheless, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in allowing Pastor Green to testify. As advise......
-
Developements in the Second Circuit: 1997-98
...n.14. 116 See Gomila v. United States, 146 F.2d 372, 373 (5th Cir. 1944); United States v. Bridges, 499 F.2d 179 (7th Cir.), cerL denied, 419 U.S. 1010 (1974); Reynolds v. United States, 238 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1956); Moffitt v. United States, 154 F.2d 402 (10th Cir.), con. deniA 328 U.S. 85......