Document: 430 U.S. 188 97 S.Ct. 990 51 L.Ed.2d 260 Stanley MARKS et al., Petitionersv.UNITED STATES. No. 75-708. Argued Nov. 1-2, 1976. Decided March 1, 1977. Syllabus Petitioners were convicted of transporting obscene materials in violation a federal statute. The conduct that gave rise to the charge occurred before Miller v. California, 413 15, 93 2607, 37 419, was decided, announcing new standards for 'isolat(ing) 'hard core' pornography from expression protected by First Amendment,' id., at 29, S.Ct., 2617. Held: Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment precludes retroactive application petitioners standards, extent those may impose criminal liability not punishable under announced Memoirs Massachusetts, 383 413, 86 975, 16 1. Bouie City Columbia, 378 347, 84 1697, 12 894. Specifically, are entitled jury instructions requiring acquit unless it finds involved 'utterly without redeeming social value.' At same time, any constitutional principle would serve benefit must be applied their case. Hamling United States, 418 87, 102, 94 2887, 2899, 41 590. Pp. 189-197. 520 F.2d 913, reversed and remanded. Solicitor Gen. Robert H. Bork, Washington, D. C., respondent. Eugene Smith, Atlanta, Ga., petitioners. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents question, fully answered 590 (1974), whether 419 (1973), retroactively potential detriment defendant We granted certiorari, 424 942, 96 1408, 47 347 (1976), resolve conflict Circuits.1 2 * charged with several counts interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1465, conspiracy transport such materials, 371. charges covered period through February 27, 1973. Trial did begin until following October. In interim, on June 21, 1973, this Court decided supra, its companion cases.2 Amendment.' U.S., St.Ct. 2617.3 That these also guide future interpretation obscenity laws clear States 200-ft. Reels Film, 123, 129-130, n. 7, 2665, 2669, 2670, 500 day as Miller. See 105, 113-114, 2901, 2905-2906. 3 argued District they Miller, but more favorable formulation (1966) (plurality opinion).4 Memoirs, view, authoritatively stated law effect prior which charted course conduct. They focused particular third part test. Under it, expressive material is constitutionally 418, 977. comparable test 'whether work, taken whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific 24, 2615. argue, casts significantly wider net than Memoirs. To apply retroactively, thereby punish innocent violates much statute penalize when performed violate Constitution's ban ex post facto laws, Art. I, 9, cl. 3; 10, overruled objections instructed standards. convicted,5 divided Appeals Sixth Circuit affirmed.6 913 (1975). now reverse. II 4 Ex Post Facto limitation upon powers Legislature, see Calder Bull, Dall. 386, L.Ed. 648 (1798), does own force Judicial Branch government. Frank Mangum, 237 309, 344, 35 582, 593, 59 969 (1915). But based notion persons have right fair warning will give penalties fundamental our concept liberty. Harriss, 612, 617, 74 808, 811, 98 989 (1954); Lanzetta New Jersey, 306 451, 453, 618, 619, 83 888 (1939). As such, against judicial action Amendment. 894 (1964), involving cognate provision Fourteenth Amendment, trespass convictions, finding rested an unexpected construction state State Supreme Court: 5 '(A)n unforeseeable enlargement statute, operates precisely like law, Constitution forbids. . If legislature barred passing follow achieving result construction.' Id., 353-354, 1703. 6 Similarly, Rabe 405 313, 993, 31 258 (1972), we conviction because stressed reversal mandated affected citizens lacked notice thus applied. 7 Relying Bouie, assert cases unforeseeably expanded reach statutes beyond what rejected argument. It noted correctly never commanded assent three Justices one apparently concluded fact became law. By line reasoning, judge looking Roth 354 476, 77 1304, 1498 (1957), last plenary decision majority united single rationale behind Court's holding.7 Although certain language formed basis plurality's Roth's distinguishing speech fairly simple articulate: average person, applying contemporary community dominant theme whole appeals prurient interest.' 489, 1311. indeed Roth, applicable there commend apparent view change 8 think basic premise reasoning faulty. When fragmented decides no explaining enjoys five Justices, 'the holding viewed position Members who concurred judgments narrowest grounds ..' Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 169 2909, 2923, 49 859 (1976) (opinion Stewart, Powell, Stevens, JJ.). Three joined controlling Two others, Black Douglas, broader reversing judgment below. 421, 424, 978, 980. reiterated well-known provides absolute shield governmental aimed suppressing obscenity. Stewart judgment, his only 'hardcore pornography' suppressed. 978. Ginzburg 463, 499, 956, (Stewart, J., dissenting). plurality therefore constituted provided governing Indeed, every considered question between so read decisions.8 Materials deemed prosecution carried burden proving value,' otherwise satisfied stringent requirements. 9 simply clarify Roth; marked significant departure And can little doubt work 'lacks value' liability. expressly observed places prosecutor 'a virtually impossible discharge proof.' 22, 2613. Clearly thought some gone unpunished 10 strictly analogous Bouie. statutory 'narrow precise,' 352, 1701, important expansive adopted deprived accused warning. contrast, here always has used sweeping describe forbidden.9 sweeping, necessarily been confined within limits severely restricted application. restricts might indicate, undeniably relaxes restrictions.10 Petitioners, engaged dicey business marketing films subject possible challenge, had products subjected standards.11 11 special care insist regulates implicates values. See, e. g., Buckley Valeo, 40-41, 645, 46 659 (1976); Smith Goguen, 415 566, 573, 1242, 1247, 39 605 (1974). Section 1465 hold, accordance since indicted occurring value.'12 time reaffirm 2900, 'any enunciated case.'13 Accordingly, reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion.14 13 So ordered. 14 BRENNAN, whom STEWART MARSHALL join, concurring dissenting part. 15 I join insofar holds definition defendant, (1964). cannot however, remanding trial. commerce 1465. adhere "clearly overbroad unconstitutional face." Cangiano 934, 935, 3223, 1171 (1974) (Brennan, dissenting), quoting Orito, 139, 148, 2674, 2680, 513 (1973) 17 STEVENS, There reasons which, combination, persuade me impermissible. First, recognizes, 'statute values.' Ante, 196. However distasteful us, nevertheless form communication entertainment acceptable substantial segment society; otherwise, value marketplace. Second, predicated somewhat illogical person prosecuted criminally providing another he possess. 394 557, 89 1243, 22 542. Third, present both substantive procedural,* prosecutions intolerably vague evenhanded enforcement virtual impossibility. my brief experience persuaded grossly disparate treatment similar offenders characteristic while agree everything said opinion, am unable Courts found derived appropriate came down: Marks, (C.A.6 1975) (the instant case); Friedman, 528 784 (C.A.10 1976), cert. pending, 75-1663. convictions where given Wasserman, 504 1012 (C.A.5 1974); Jacobs, 564 (C.A.9 Sherpix, Inc., 168 U.S.App.D.C. 121, 512 1361 two earlier trial opinion). Thevis, 484 1149 1973) (Thevis I), denied, 932, 3222, 1170 (1974); Palladino, 490 499 (C.A.1 1974). there, foreshadowing later held void all Memoirs-based review appellants benefits Hamling, 2899. presenting facts, Thevis i. Linetsky, 533 192 1976); 526 ii), 429 928, 335, 50 299 (1976). Hill, 733 1974), 420 952, 95 1336, 43 Ninth Circuit, reached result, Cutting, 538 835 (en banc), 1052, 766, 769 (1977). Paris Adult Theatre Slaton, 49, 2628, 446 (1973); Kaplan 115, 492 (1973). held: 'The guidelines trier be: (a) standards' find interest .; (b) depicts describes, patently offensive way, sexual specifically defined law; (c) test, adequate if written judicially construed, defines conduct, depiction forbidden. offered examples choose regulate: '(a) Patently representations descriptions ultimate acts, normal perverted, actual simulated. '(b) masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition genitals.' 25, 'three elements coalesce' outside protection Amendment: '(I)t established sex; affronts relating description representation matters; utterly Petitioner American News Co., charge. other four seven eight counts. Both oral argument contended petitioners' improper, consequently Government defend issue agrees should stand. Shortly after response divergence among Court, began practice disposing per curiam decisions. Redrup York, 386 767, 87 1414, 515 (1967), first. least fashion. collected 82-83, 8, 2646-2647 Books, Inc. 358 935 1966), rev'd curiam, 388 449, 2098, 1311 (1967); Mm. Motion Picture 432 705 (C.A.2 1970), dismissed sub nom. Unicorn Enterprises, 403 925, 91 2241, 29 704 (1971); Ten Erotic Paintings, (C.A.4 1970); Groner, 479 577 (C.A.5) banc) judges constituting standard), vacated consideration light 414 969, 278, 38 213 Pellegrino, 467 1972); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. Oklahoma City, 459 282 Huffman 152 238, 470 (1971), rehearing 163 417, 502 Cf. Grove Press, Philadelphia, 82 (C.A.3 1969); Cinecom Theaters Midwest Fort Wayne, 473 1297 (C.A.7 1973); Luros 389 200 (C.A.8 1968). pertinent part: 'Whoever knowingly transports foreign purpose sale distribution obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription article capable producting sound matter indecent immoral character, shall fined $5,000 imprisoned years, both.' For reason, different Rose Locke, 423 48, 243, 185 (1975), broad reading upset previously narrower construction. challenge ostensibly sustained here. 115-116, 2906-2907. similarity superficial only. 3, supra. could stand requires categories enumerated authoritative No limiting led convictions. made out claim expand '(T)he enumeration specific purport make criminal, 1461, though criminal.' 116, 2907. text, shifting implicitly recognized itself. took place Its verdict meant value. examined record determined jury's 'was supported evidence obscenity.' 100, avoid inquiry ground relevance, done respects. stated, viewing F.2d, 923 (McCree, either 922. Such conclusion, absent dependable means knowing character dubious even accept court's circumstances substitute first instance properly jury, element offense remand retroactive. 920. passage quoted reaffirms implicit makes remands implication. Our 1973 courts below 'benefits' disposition case, occasion questions presented petition. How, example, appellate court intelligently determine identified relevant standards?

Category: 2