Court Opinion

ID: 9449191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 00:00:28.470287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:45.143353
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I regret I cannot concur in the opinion of Chief Judge Hastings.
While it is conceded by everyone, including appellants, that the mails were used by some of the members of the Adonis Male Club in transmitting unquestionably obscene letters and photographs to each other, I do not believe the Government proved the Zuidevelds conspired to send this obscenity through the mails.
The Government concedes, as it must, that the magazines Vim and Gym did not come within the ban of nonmailable matter. This concession was unavoidable in light of the ruling in Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478, 82 S.Ct. *8821432, 8 L.Ed. 639 (1962). It further admits that the advertisement therein of the Adonis Male Club, taken by itself or if found in some other magazine such as Life, Reader’s Digest or Popular Mechanics, would be innocent. Accordingly, it is my view that the Government’s evidence of a conspiracy hinges on an unwarranted inference that ought not be used to sustain its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That inference or assumption of necessity is that any association of homosexuals wherein correspondence by mail is anticipated will result in the transmission of obscene materials. That this inference is unwarranted is amply demonstrated by the Government’s admission that the creation of a “pen pal” club among homosexuals is not per se an infraction of the law. Perforce, it must make this admission because there is no law placing homosexuals in a legal status different from that of heterosexuals.
Furthermore, an assumption that homosexuals will inevitably indulge in obscenity if invited to correspond with one another through the aid of a “pen pal” club is no more valid than an assumption that one who establishes a so-called “lonely hearts” club among men and women thereby invites and promotes the transmission of obscenity through the mails. Without indulging in this underlying assumption there is, in my opinion, no substantial proof that the Zuidevelds conspired with 79 (out of a total of 650) members of the Adonis Male Club to exchange obscene materials.
The Supreme Court of the United States in Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959), made it clear that scienter is a requisite of a violation of an obscenity statute.
To show that the Zuidevelds knew that the members of the Adonis Male Club would indulge in obscene correspondence and that they intended that obscene materials be transmitted through the mails, the majority cites the following specific evidentiary facts:
(1) Jack Zuideveld’s representation that the magazines Vim and Gym were directed toward body builders and not homosexuals when he was aware that a substantial part of the readership were homosexuals, and his denial of responsibility for the “Tools” article in one issue of Vim.
(2) Thirteen applications (out of 650) contained measurements which allegedly could only be the size of the applicant’s genitalia.
(3) Three letters from members: (a) one indicating interest in nude males; (b) another indicating a desire to live with him “who cares not for women”; and (c) a third indicating that correspondents were “hot uninhibited studs like myself.” One letter from Jack Zuideveld to a Club member suggesting use of a Polaroid camera.
These evidentiary facts primarily tend only to prove something of which the Zuidevelds were admittedly aware, viz., that the Adonis Club was composed largely of homosexuals. Except for the inference that homosexuals generally or inevitably exchange obscenity if invited to correspond with one another, this evidence fails to establish the requisite knowledge, i. e., scienter, that some of the Club members would engage or were engaging in criminal correspondence.
While this evidence may also tend to establish knowledge on the part of the Zuidevelds that some of the Club members had proclivities peculiar to homosexuals, it does not establish that the knowledge and intent of the Zuidevelds was a sine qua non to the incidental illegal use of the malls.
Additionally, the scanty evidence upon which the majority bases its inference of the Zuidevelds’ knowledge and intent fails completely in demonstrating the nexus between the inferred knowledge and intent and the incidental illegal activity of certain Club members. Absent this, the independent, illegal motivations and actions of Club members over whom the Zuidevelds exercised no control can*883not coalesce into a criminal conspiracy with the Zuidevelds as unwitting participants.
Pertinent to the question whether these evidentiary specifics are sufficient to prove the requisite element of conspiratorial knowledge and intent is the following language in United States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928, 942 (2nd Cir. 1961), wherein seven individual defendants and one corporate defendant were prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud:
The scanty extrinsic evidence produced by the governement against these defendants implies guilt only if we first assume guilty knowledge and purpose; when used to prove that basic element of the crime, it is neither substantial nor convincing.
Certainly this particular evidence, or for that matter, all of the evidence when considered together, fails to prove a concerted agreement, i. e., a conspiracy, among the 37 indicted Club members and the Zuidevelds to use the mails for the exchange of obscene materials.1
It is pertinent to ask: How might the Zuidevelds have protected themselves from being drawn into a criminal conspiracy by knowledge based on an unsupportable inference that homosexuals when communicating with each other will generally transmit obscene material, or by incidental knowledge, again only by inference, that certain Club members might be illegally using the mails ? The only solution available to them, I submit, would have been dissolution of the Club. Such a solution renders nugatory the Constitutionally protected right of even homosexuals to associate through correspondence or otherwise. This right is limited to them, as to all others, only by a proscription against using the mails for the transmisison of obscene materials. Henceforth, in light of the condemning inferences of the majority opinion, no one will dare organize a correspondence club of homosexuals.
The Supreme Court in Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 150, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959), recognized that “legal devices and doctrines, in most applications consistent with the Constitution,” may not “be applied in settings where they have the collateral effect of inhibiting the freedom of expression, by making the individual the more reluctant to exercise it.” The proof of a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1461 by using an inference that homosexuals will inevitably or generally transmit obscene materials falls precisely within this category of “legal devices and doctrines” condemned by the Supreme Court. The instant decision does more than inhibit— it destroys the right of homosexuals to associate together in correspondence clubs.
Although the activities of the Zuidevelds and their choice of means of making a livelihood may be termed despicable by most people and may not meet the standards of a majority of the citizenry, this does not deprive the Zuidevelds of the protection of the Constitution. Even homosexuals and reprobates who prey upon their hapless condition are entitled to find refuge in its dictates. Freedom of association is one of them. Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigating Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 83 S.Ct. 889, 9 L.Ed.2d 929 (1963). Freedom of expression is another. Smith v. California, supra.
There is no question that obscene writings and materials are not protected by these freedoms. On the other hand, they do protect conduct and activity which does not come within the forbidden area.
I believe not only that there is a total lack of evidence to support the finding that the Zuidevelds engaged in a con*884spiracy to violate the federal obscenity statute, but also that their conviction violates rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Therefore, I would reverse.

. The correspondence was usually confined to letters exchanged by two members; occasionally three-member letter exchanges were made. There was no evidence of any round-robin correspondence among all of the members and the Adonis Club or any evidence that the Zuidevelds or the Adonis Club mailed obscene materials or forwarded any letters from on» member to another.