Hill v. United States, No. 74-670
Decision Date | 24 February 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 74-670 |
Parties | James Norman HILL 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 Southern District of Florida of shipping obscene films by common carrier in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462 and of transporting the films in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale or distribution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1465. 18 U.S.C. § 1462 provides in pertinent part:
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
'Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or 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, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.'
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions, 500 F.2d 733 (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, 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. 26. 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 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)....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Moore
...application.) See also United States ex reb. Matthews v. Johnson, 503 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 95 S.Ct. 1336, 43 L.Ed.2d 430 (1975). (Note: the discussion of the degrees of murder in footnote reflects prior law where murder was divided into two degrees.......
-
Com. v. Moore
...application.) See also United States ex reb. Matthews v. Johnson, 503 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 95 S.Ct. 1336, 43 L.Ed.2d 430 (1975).(Note: the discussion of the degrees of murder in this footnote reflects prior law where murder was divided into two degr......
-
Com. v. Cain
...a defendant on trial for murder. United States ex rel. Matthews v. Johnson, 503 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 952, 95 S.Ct. 1336, 43 L.Ed.2d 430 (1975). Today we must decide, in light of Matthews, if a defendant whose conviction was on direct appeal at the time of that dec......
-
U.S. v. Investment Enterprises, Inc., s. 91-7134
...under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1462 (1988). See United States v. Hill, 500 F.2d 733, 740 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 952, 95 S.Ct. 1336, 43 L.Ed.2d 430 (1975). Furthermore, knowledge of the sexually explicit nature of the materials as the required scienter has been upheld against similar c......