Schindler v. United States, 14547.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 14547.,14547. |
| Citation | 221 F.2d 743 |
| Parties | Gordon SCHINDLER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Gordon Schindler, in pro. per.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Louis Lee Abbott, Manuel L. Real, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before POPE, FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.
Schindler was indicted on ten counts for sending obscene matter through the mail. At the first trial, conviction stood on Counts Nine and Ten. Appeal was taken to this Court, and the conviction was affirmed. Schindler v. United States, 208 F.2d 289, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 938, 74 S.Ct. 633, 98 L.Ed. 1088. Mistrial or new trial having been granted on all remaining counts, a second trial was had on these charges, which resulted in conviction on five counts. The sentence was for four months' imprisonment and $1,000 fine on two respective counts and probation on the remainder.
Count Two, on which there was a separate sentence, charged the depositing in the Los Angeles, California, Post Office, for mailing, of a postcard addressed to a person in Bell Gardens, California, bearing an advertisement of the obscene books. Defendant makes no point of this feature. The use of the mails in the same state constitutes an offense even if interstate commerce is not involved.
Schindler raises several questions:
It is objected that the trial court erred (a) in failing to permit the source books to be introduced in evidence, and (b) in refusing to permit J. B. Tietz, Esq., to testify on the question of intent. (c) It is claimed it was necessary for the government to prove criminal intent to warrant a conviction since obscenity was a crime at common law. (d) Defendant maintains that the Act under which he was convicted was unconstitutional, since it was an unwarranted abridgment of rights given by the First Amendment. There was no clear and present danger shown, it is said, and local obscenity laws can and do protect the public morals without further need of restraint by use of the mails. (e) Finally, defendant contends that the conviction was not sustained by the law and the evidence.
The answers are clear:
(a) If the accused book is drawn from a source book or a combination of sources, not themselves regarded as obscene, this circumstance does not guarantee that resulting compilation is not obscene, since in this field the manner of presentation is cardinal. There was no error in exclusion.
(b) The exclusion of the testimony of a lawyer as to his opinion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Krasner, Cr. No. 92-0175.
...go beyond what has already been provided by the Supreme Court is required neither by precedent nor common sense. See Schindler v. United States, 221 F.2d 743 (9th Cir.1955) (jury instruction that it was irrelevant whether or not defendant considered the mailed material obscene upheld by cou......
-
Bohannon v. Pegelow
...108 F.Supp. 798 (N.Y.), aff'd 200 F.2d 666, cert. den., 345 U.S. 965, 73 S.Ct. 949, 97 L.Ed. 1384 (1953), and Schindler v. United States, 221 F.2d 743 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 350 U.S. 938, 76 S.Ct. 310, 100 L.Ed. 819 (1956). Initially, it should be noted that all of those cases were decided......