Detco, Inc. v. McCann, Civ. A. No. 72-C-121.
Decision Date | 19 October 1973 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 72-C-121. |
Parties | DETCO, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation, Plaintiff, v. E. Michael McCANN, Individually and as District Attorney for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Dominic H. Frinzi, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
Francis J. Slattery, Asst. Dist. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants.
Before FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge, and REYNOLDS and GORDON, District Judges.
On July 20, 1972, the plaintiff, a theatre corporation, sought injunctive relief against the enforcement of Wisconsin's obscenity statute, Wis.Stats. § 944.21.1 In Detco v. Breier, 349 F.Supp. 537 (E. D.Wis.1972), this court, sitting as a single judge, granted plaintiff a temporary restraining order restraining the defendants from enforcing § 944.21 against the plaintiff on the grounds that as construed and applied the statute was found likely to be in violation of the First Amendment, and additionally, if enforced against plaintiff, he would suffer irreparable harm.2 After the issuance of the temporary restraining order, this matter was assigned to a three-judge court for determination of the substantive issues involved. On May 3, 1973, the three-judge court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. This matter was taken under advisement.
Subsequently, on July 17, 1973, defendants made a motion for an order vacating the temporary restraining order in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (decided June 21, 1973). This matter is presently before the three-judge court on that motion. It is the feeling of this court that the temporary restraining order should not be vacated.
The probability that the express wording of § 944.21 will be held unconstitutional is greater after Miller v. California, supra, than before. In Miller the Supreme Court provided a new formula for determining obscenity:
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether `the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, * * * (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. * * *" (Emphasis added.) Id. at 15, 93 S. Ct. at 2610.
This new formula was designed to provide for standards more concrete and specific than those of the past and to alleviate the problems posed by the void-for-vagueness doctrine and the requirements of notice. The Court stated:
* * *"(Emphasis added.) Id. at 27, 93 S.Ct. at 2616.
Thus, the dictates of Miller, especially the specificity requirement, are likely to sound the death knell for the Wisconsin obscenity statute as it is presently construed.3
In addition, in Miller the Court determined that the action should be remanded to the state appellate court for a decision on whether or not the statute, as either written or construed, complied with the specificity requirements enunciated by the Court. Id. at 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607. Likewise, see Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973), and Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115, 93 S.Ct. 2680, 37 L.Ed.2d 492 (1973). In United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels, 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500, n. 7 (1973), it was stated that "* * * we must leave to state courts the construction of state legislation * * *." In light of both this and the probability that § 944.21, Wis.Stats., is unconstitutional as both written and construed, it is the feeling of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Horton
...(D.N.J.1973), 1973), cert. pending sub nom. Cryan v. Hamar Theatres, Inc. (December 18, 1973) 42 U.S.L. Week 3365; Detco, Inc. v. McCann, 365 F.Supp. 176, 178 (E.D.Wis.1973).9 The treatment of this court's interpretation of Massachusetts obscenity laws by the Supreme Court of the United Sta......
-
Miller v. Robert Emmett Goodrich Corp.
...Keating v. 'Vixen', 35 Ohio St.2d 215, 301 N.E.2d 880 (1973); Jenkins v. State, 230 Ga. 726, 199 S.E.2d 183 (1973); Detco, Inc. v. McCann, 365 F.Supp. 176 (E.D.Wis., 1973); United States v. One Reel of Film, 481 F.2d 206 (CA 1, 1973); United States v. Thevis, 484 F.2d 1149 (CA 5, 1973); Ric......
-
De Salvo v. Codd
...is imminent, thus distinguishing this case from United Artists Corp. v. Proskin, 363 F.Supp. 406 (N.D. N.Y.1973) and Detco, Inc. v. McCann, 365 F.Supp. 176 (E.D.Wis.1973). Another factor which persuades us to reach the merits is that we find sufficient guidance as to the construction to be ......
-
Birkenshaw v. Haley
...(1943) . . ." 415 U.S. at 464, 94 S.Ct. at 1218, 39 L.Ed.2d at 517, 14 Crl at 3127. Valuable guidance can be gleaned from Detco Inc. v. McCann, 365 F.Supp. 176, 14 Crl 2145 (D.C.Wis.1973), wherein the three-judge panel was confronted with a First Amendment attack upon an obscenity statute. ......