Document: 424 U.S. 669 96 S.Ct. 1189 47 L.Ed.2d 387 Chester McKINNEY, Petitioner,v.State of ALABAMA. No. 74-532. Argued Dec. 15, 1975. Decided March 23, 1976. Syllabus Pursuant to an Alabama statutory procedure, a prosecuting attorney brought in rem equity action state court against four magazines named as "respondents," and two other parties, seeking adjudication the magazines' obscenity, which resulted court's decree that were "judicially declared be obscene." Petitioner, bookstall operator who had not been given notice or made party proceeding, was officially advised concerning specific magazines. After officers later bought one (New Directions) from petitioner's bookstall, he charged with violating criminal statute by selling "mailable matter known . have judicially found At trial, his conviction, upheld on appeal, petitioner allowed issue New Direction's obscenity presented jurors, instructed they concerned determining but only whether sold material obscene. Held: The procedures, insofar precluded for litigating vel non Directions defense prosecution, violated First Fourteenth Amendments. Freedman v. Maryland, 380 51, 85 734, 13 649; Heller York, 413 483, 93 2789, 37 745. constitutional infirmity those procedures cannot avoided ground urged State constituted "adversary judicial proceeding," since respondents privity presumed interests sufficiently identical adequately protect Amendment rights, right assert own behalf proceeding party. Pp. 673-676. 292 Ala. 484, 296 So.2d 228, reversed remanded. Robert Eugene Smith, Atlanta, Ga., petitioner. Joseph G. L. Marston, III, Montgomery, Ala., respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Petitioner convicted trial permitted litigate publication basis even though earlier civil it held We granted certiorari, 422 1040, 95 2654, 45 692 (1975), consider this procedure comported our decisions delineating safeguards must attend attempts States prohibit dissemination expression asserted protected Amendments such interference. reverse. 2 * authority conferred upon him Ala.Code, Tit. 14, c. 64A (Supp.1973),1 District Attorney 13th Judicial Circuit instituted Court Mobile County certain mailable matter. On February 26, 1970, entered announced Twelve days General's office went Paris Bookstall Birmingham, place business operated They personally letter General informing specifying 3 31, these returned there purchased, petitioner, copy magazine Directions, specified listed thereafter § 374(4) (Supp.1973),2 4 offense claim obscene sought submitted jury. claimed could guilty unless trier fact case its determination according contemporary community standards. declined submit jury jurors any need decide verdict guilty. 5 unsuccessfully appealed judgment Criminal Appeals, whereupon Supreme petition certiorari. That court, divided vote, also affirmed conviction. It ruled properly restricted issues because rem, conclusively establishing all world. therefore binding subsequent prosecution proceeding. 228 (1974). II 6 contends utilized Alabama, agree. While can no doubt under cases materials are beyond protection Amendment, Rothv. United States, 354 476, 77 1304, 1498 (1957); Miller California, 2607, 419 (1973); consistently recognized ascertains ones ensure "the necessary sensitivity freedom expression," 58, 739, 649, 654 (1965); 489, 745 (1973). scheme at here, applied fails meet requirement. 7 is undisputed received opportunity heard therein regarding Directions.3 Yet nevertheless seeks finally bind him, well potential purveyors described result reached There nothing indicating available avenue initiating challenge declaration Directions. Decrees resulting proceedings initiated Chapter Code some same effect would ex parte censorship unilaterally offensive proscribed distribution. Such without provision re-examination censor, clearly constitutionally infirm. 8 asserts, however, proceeding" contemplated decisions, Freedman, supra, U.S., 738, 654; Heller, 2793, 752, relevant values thereby safeguarded. indeed "judicial" sense presided over judge rather than administrative official. But State's adversary nature In somewhat wide mark. 9 altogether clear record precisely what transpired hearing does appear were, addition several "respondents" proceeding,4 individual corporate respondent: "Chris Zarocastas, individually d/b/a Nelson's News Stand; (and) Stand, Inc., Corporation, Stand." existence5 parties provides sufficient adverseness permit use thus obtained nonparties 10 Our difficulty argument assumption parties' will rights. indication term used effects judgments. See Litchfield Goodnow's Adm'r, 123 549, 551, 210, 211, 31 L.Ed. 199, 201 (1887). And we exhibitors distributors may unwilling, various reasons, oppose material. 59, 655. may, course, make their how vigorously Constitution obviously force anyone exercise guarantees. Those accorded established extent rights bound outcome, either chose contest do so lost. 11 follow decision should determine others. Nonparties like assess quite differently strength claims very different views desirability disseminating particular materials. think assessments themselves, chance if choose. 12 asserts invalidation conviction seriously undermine examine character materials, respondent offer marked advantages dealing case-by-case prosecutions. sentenced wherein Vel concluded notice. Thus condemn general, see Adult Theatre I Slaton, 49, 55, 2628, 2633, 446, 455 (1973), conclude standards required where stake. Petitioner's vacated afforded forum before material.6 cause remanded further inconsistent opinion. 14 So ordered. 15 Judgment 16 STEVENS took part consideration case. 17 BLACKMUN, concurring. 18 concur join deciding following propositions: 19 1. Whether institute adjudicate then, merely notifying publishers pendency adjudication, them everywhere throughout jurisdiction. take it, specifically, concluding sentence fourth-to-last paragraph Court's opinion, Ante, 676, resolve question. If does, refrain joining resolution. 20 2. system allows initiate proper. second Part 674, it. believed, connection, settled burden proving unprotected rests Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. Conrad, 420 546, 560, 1239, 1247, 43 448, 460 shifted side mere "avenue challenge." 21 specify reservations feel each stated propositions area close difficult one, neither has resolved Court, that, surely, needs decided 22 BRENNAN, 23 reversed. frequently my view "at least absence distribution juveniles obtrusive exposure unconsenting adults, Federal Governments attempting wholly suppress sexually oriented allegedly 'obscene' contents." 73, 113, 2642, 2662, 467, 490 (1973) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). Upon Law Obscenity, forbids explicit sexual consenting facially unconstitutional both aspects. Therefore, while agree notice, remand declare law hold criminally prosecuted violation. 24 However, presently prevailing jurisprudence accords broader power regulate concede, appropriate circumstance concern contains provisions violate impermissibly create risk citizens shy away possessing literature entire protected. Jenkins Georgia, 418 153, 94 2750, 41 642 25 Obscenity takes form gaining increasing favor among States. permits test prior penalty. This acknowledged value approach solution vexing problem reconciling efforts prohibitions through Amendment. "Instead requiring bookseller dread sale book warning, subject hazard imprisonment, assures consequences ignores order specifically directed prompt carefully circumscribed obscenity." Kingsley Books, Inc. Brown, 436, 442, 1325, 1328, 1469, 1474 (1957). "(S)uch exhibitor purveyor best possible indictments, regulation." 2634, 455. generally Lockhart, Escape Chill Uncertainty: Explicit Sex Ga.L.Rev. 533, 569-587 (1975). 26 statute, enacted 1961 expressly styled Act 856, (Supp.1973), recites Act's purpose provide public prosecutors speedy remedy obtaining contents publications effective reach persons responsible composition, publication, within State. To end, distinguishes between "mailable" "nonmailable" concerns governing matter, defined printed written "having class mailing privileges laws States," "determined nonmailable" laws. 3.1 A based when been, defendant's knowledge, obscene" Act. 4. (solicitor circuit county solicitor) commence "an Equity matter" "reasonable believe person, knowledge contents," shipping into 5. "directed name description" "author, publisher person" offering "for commercial distribution" "giving give away, intent sell commercially distribute exhibit away." 6. filing complaint exhibits, "as soon practicable" Ex dismiss "(i)f probable 7. If, finds cause, "it forthwith temporarily restraining prohibiting show "returnable less ten after service," why shall adjudicated Ibid. full follows, "be disposed maximum promptness dispatch commensurate requirements, including due process, press speech." 9.2 conducted Rules Civil Procedure cases.3 hearing, obscene, enjoined residing dispose possession. 10. An injunction "only Respondents, active concert participation Respondents receive actual ." 11. Disobedience constitutes contempt "any person contract agreement respondent, (who receives) notice" injunction. 13. comply direct sheriffs "seize destroy matter." 10(c). 27 interwoven general provisions, 4, questions raised addressed, view, considering bears conclusion underscored "cumulative" addressed "hard-core" pornography 1969. 64C, §§ 374 (16j-16O ) (Supp.1973). Section (16k)(c) prohibition selling, exhibiting, deemed apply represent hard-core chapter statutes." 28 discuss raise me most vulnerable challenge. Burden Proof 29 question uncertainty inheres definition obscenity. expected market pertaining sex should, fear handling subject. commends Alabama's minimize regulatory scheme. complies commands process serve interest controlling exposing marketer risks stigma protect, minimizing self-censorship, free literature. shifting context, creates another danger suppressed. 30 Although proof prove magazines, 487, 231 (1974), appears preponderance evidence. Tr. Oral Arg. 4-5. hazards freedoms inhering regulation require more exacting standard reasonable doubt. Inherent factfinding erroneous judgments and, implicated, selection necessity implicates relative Constitutional acceptability "There always litigation margin error, representing error factfinding, account. Where stake transcending reduced placing persuading factfinder (the existence fact) doubt." Speiser Randall, 357 513, 525-526, 78 1332, 1342, 1460, 1472 (1958). See, e. g., re Winship, 397 358, 369-372, 90 1068, 1075-76, 368, 378-380 (1970) (Harlan, concurring); cf. Rosenbloom Metromedia, 403 29, 49-51, 91 1811, 1823, 296, 315 (1971) (opinion Brennan, J.). non, "interest value"—protection disseminate public's Protection demands almost certain—convinced doubt—that immune suppression. concept unconstitutionally vague, "expressly complexity vital application prevent denial 'the speech press' " nonobscene Marcus Search Warrant, 367 717, 730, 81 1708, 1715, 1127, 1135 (1961). "(T)he requires conform curtailment expression, often separated dim uncertain line." Bantam Sullivan, 372 66, 83 631, 637, 584, 590 (1963). line means likely event, particularly marginally confident falls line. light command evidence poses too substantial erroneously Moreover, determinations especially acute interim restraint pending merits operate restraint; indeed, possibility heightened never truly faced acid acceptance standards.4 Furthermore, incorporating, current law, notion patent offensiveness average member community—there greater Judge operating sole convinced jury's assessment values. 32 imposition sanctions preponderance-of-the-evidence simply great self-censorship engaged sex. Cf. Smith v.California, 361 147, 80 215, 205 (1959). Just improper allocation "will legitimate utterance penalized" "steer far wider unlawful zone," 526, 1473, affected overly careful about deal. threat punishment economic loss proceedings, difference degree. York Times Co. 376 254, 277-278, 84 710, 724, 686, 704-705, (1964). inevitable tendency standard—by forcing marginal hard avoid sanctions—would limit volume permissibly handle, "restrict access forms word directly." 154, 219, 211. "self-censorship, compelled State, affecting whole public, hardly virulent being privately administered." 33 Related arguments context purports Obscenity. proscribes criminalizing general. statutes permissible. elements coalesce constitute crime: (1) overt act perform possession (2) Each otherwise proved Due Process Clause protects accused except every crime charged." U.S 364, 1073, 375. requirement diluted transporting essence "crime" reality remains disobedience 34 dangers emanating increased likelihood standard—the proscription material—are regulation; anything, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt judges juries reluctant incarceration consequence. Both present freedoms, tolerable level applying rigorous proof. III Jury Trial 35 Alexander Virginia, 836, 2803, 993 pale protection, serves salutary function. 36 "The represents cross-section special aptitude reflecting person. peculiarly competent judging which, definition, calls appraisal person's afford defendant, right, short, giving proper fashioned safeguard demanded Of generally, initially question, I. e., men differ 1331, 1478 (1957) (Brennan, rejected contention imposes conducting assuming judge, must, determined law. 25-26, 2615, 2616, 431. chooses enact makes conclusive involving action, course adopt fairest accurate reflection IV 38 Effect Determination Proceedings Proceeding 39 Accepting purposes permissibility forbidding perceive defect knowing provided, adequate notice.5 deserves comment. Under doctrine, unless, Inter alia, Contemporary standards' find work, taken whole, appeals prurient describes, patently way, conduct applicable law". 24, 431 (emphasis supplied). Community inherently flux, declaring forever preclude introduction community, longer "patently offensive" appealing "prurient interest." Some celebrated works generation generation. Thus, minimum, interject evolved time acts committed. colorable showing change, again demonstrate doubt, contemporaneously "obscene." Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 1881, 508 (1975).6 V Possession Provisions 40 Another deter respect meant do, assure performed safety connection true, "possession" affect One renders chapter" misdemeanor fine $500 up six months' both. 4(2). invalid prohibits regulating unrelated exhibition. Stanley 394 557, 89 1243, 542 (1969). 42 material, three things enumerated (§ 4) (except return whom received)" rebuttable presumption intended dissemination, possessor. shifts defendants going forward distribution; possessor explain holding return, issue. Mere personal penalized. obvious creating lawful penalized lawfully arguably man knows bring forth persuade lawfulness necessarily steer zone bear burdens." 1473 regard, once defendant shown possessed in" "things" nonmailable Apparently, come play fit statute's description. unregulated libraries. copies item, might deterrence activity, possess limited item. Juries ingenuous fail draw inferences multiple works. add weight presumptions jeopardize speech. 44 MARSHALL joins STEWART pertinent part: "s 374(5). Equitable imported, possessed. Whenever solicitor contents, sending causing sent, bringing brought, distribution, state, preparing, exhibiting distributing sell, distribute, sent caused prepared, sold, exhibited distributed offered possessed, having jurisdiction 374(6). Same; complaint. authorized section 374(5) commenced attached, exhibit, true shall: "(a) description; "(b) allege nature; "(c) designate list names addresses, known, author, away; "(d) pray obscene; "(e) permanent "(f) surrender, seizure destruction." 374(4). Importation, matter; penalties. Every who, sends causes brings prepares, sells, exhibits distributes, gives offers chapter, imprisoned jail, labor county, year, fined thousand dollars offense, discretion court. "(2) months, five hundred court." Indeed, indicate commenced. did not, certainly quixotic expect anticipate developing outcome seek therein. presumably served injunctive accordance 374(7) "all (were) represented counsel," them, participation. App. 100. Because yet considered courts, pass defining vague. Persons U.S.C. 1461 include still unsettled empowered findings nonmailability circumstances, Manual Enterprises, Day, 370 478, 82 1432, 639 (1962). Since involves unnecessary here "nonmailable," despite content, degree requisite mind. Compliance duration pursuant 7, although limits preferable. For example, restraints approved 1469 (1957), "(t)he entitled day joinder rendered trial." Id., 438 n. 1, 1326, 1472. construed 1305(a), importation avoiding principle 58-59, 738-739, 654-655 (1965), Bount Rizzi, 400 410, 423, 498 (1971). Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 363, 1400, 822 filed "in equity," 5, July 3, 1973, adopted now "Civil Action." 230 problems ever reaching fringe currently standards, able exert influence evolving fully Element collateral estoppel. making participated. case, element trial. Similarly, "community standard" alleged occurred. "contemporary standards" "state" "national" standard. E. Hamling 87, 2887, (1974); When adopts standard, employed anywhere see, defective regard. smaller city-wide community; then participated, "community"

Category: 2