MILLER V. CALIFORNIA NO.

413 U.S. 15 (1973)

OBSCENITY

Marvin Miller, was arrested for violating the California Penal Code 311.2, when he distributed graphic material through the mail.

Mail included brochures entitled, “Intercourse,” “Man-Woman,” “Sex Orgies Illustrated,” and “An Illustrated History of Pornography. Also he sent a film, “Marital Intercourse.”

BACKGROUND

Los Angeles Judicial District Court.

Prosecutor: State of California; Lawyer: Michael R. Capizzi.

Defendant: Marvin Miller; Lawyer: Burton Marks.

Decision: Guilty of violating California Penal Code 311.2

JUDICIAL COURT

COURT OF APPEALSAppellate Department, Superior Court of California, County of Orange.

Law in question: Is the sale and distribution of obscene material by mail protected under the First Amendment.

Reviewed the court case, Memoirs V. Massachusetts (1966), to determine their decision.

Used Memoirs Test of Obscenity.

Decision: Reaffirmed the Judicial Court’s ruling.

SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court of California. (Burger Court)

Why did the court agree to hear this case: Are the decisions of the lower courts violating Miller’s right to the First Amendment, and therefore, an unconstitutional decision?

Dissenting Opinion (1): Justice Douglas

Dissenting Opinion (2): Justice Brennan

Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Burger

Justice Douglas

No legitimate definition stating the standards of what qualifies an item to be obscene in the constitution or by any law.

Memoirs Test is inaccurate because it states that obscene material is “utterly without redeeming social value,” no clear way to determine this statement

DISSENTING OPINION (1)

Justice Brennan

California Penal Code 311.2 is faulty because it states, “anyone who knowingly distributes lewd material is at fault,” and there is no clear way to know that material is lewd without clear specifications defining what obscene material is by law.

DISSENTING OPINION (2)

Chief Justice Burger

Court needs to regulate the distribution of graphic material so juveniles are not at risk of being exposed to explicit items.

Court needs to create a clear, legitimate definition of obscenity by law. (Creation of Three-Prong Obscenity Test)

MAJORITY OPINION

CONCLUSION

5 to 4 decision, in favor of Miller; not guilty

Cannot convict an individual of a crime not clearly defined until after Three-Prong Obscenity Test was created.

HISTORICAL/POLITICAL IMPACT

Creation of the Three-Prong Obscenity Test, first legitimate test of obscenity.

Set the standards to define what is lewd material, so that other cases, like Miller V. California (1973), can be clearly decided

Three-Prong Obscenity Test: Obscene material is defined as, items that the average person, using community standards, finds that the material appeals to the prurient interest, work that depicts, in an offensive way, sexual conduct as stated by law, and items that obtain explicit characteristics. But lack literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

WORKS CITED

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZD.html

http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Censorship/3-prong-test.html

http://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/miller-v-california/deck/2337362

http://www.oyez.org/justices/william_o_douglas

http://www.oyez.org/justices/william_j_brennan_jr

http://www.oyez.org/justices/warren_e_burger

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73