REDMOND ET UX.
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1966-05-23
No. 1056
Mr. Justice Stewart, with whom Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas concur, would reverse this conviction, not because it violates the policy of the Justice Department, but because it violates the Constitution.
384 U.S. 264 Supreme Court of the United States (1966) Caution
Also reported at: 16 L. Ed. 2d 521 · 86 S. Ct. 1415 · 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1581 · SCDB 1965-110
Cited by 44 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The Supreme Court granted the Solicitor General's motion to vacate the Sixth Circuit's judgment and dismiss the information against the petitioners.

Facts & Procedural History

Petitioners were convicted under 18 U. S. C. § 1461 for mailing undeveloped nude films of themselves for developing. The Sixth Circuit affirmed their …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The petition for certiorari is granted. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction of petitioners, husband and wife, under an information charging them with violating the federal obscenity statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1461 (1964 ed.), by having mailed undeveloped films of each other posing in the nude to an out-of-state firm for developing, and having recéived through the mails the developed negatives and a print of each.

In response to the certiorari petition, the Solicitor General has filed a motion requesting that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit be vacated and the cause remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the information. The ground of the motion is that “the initiation of the instant prosecution was not in accord with policies which had previously been formulated within the Department [of Justice] for the guidance of United States Attorneys.” The policies referred to are set forth in a memorandum to United States Attorneys, dated August 31, 1964. The memorandum states, in pertinent part, that prosecution for mailing private correspondence which is allegedly obscene “should be the exception confined to those cases involving repeated offenders or other circumstances which may fairly be characterized as aggravated.” The Solicitor General states that there are no such exceptional circumstances warranting a prosecution of petitioners: “They were not repeated offenders. They had no record of involvement with obscene materials or sex-related offenses and no apparent opportunity for close association with young people. No other aggravating circumstance appears to be present.”

In consideration of the premises and upon an independent examination of the record filed in this Court, the motion is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly vacated, the cause is remanded to the District Court, and that court is directed to dismiss the information. See Petite v. United States, 361 U. S. 529.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Stewart, with whom Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas concur, would reverse this conviction, not because it violates the policy of the Justice Department, but because it violates the Constitution.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

  • Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1969)
    …but did note its belief that “the statement ... [in Roth] concerning the rejection of obscenity must be interpreted in the light of the widespread distribution of the material in Roth.” 156 F. Supp., at 360, n. 40. See also Redmond v. United States, 384 U. S. 264 (1966), where this Court granted the Solicitor General’s motion to vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss an information charging a violation of a federal obscenity statute in a case where a husband and wife mailed undeveloped films of each…
  • Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1973)
    …abe v. Washington, 405 U. S. 313, 317 (1972) (concurring opinion); United States v. Reidel, 402 U. S. 351, 360-362 (1971) (separate opinion); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968); id., at 674-675 (dissenting opinion); Redmond v. United States, 384 U. S. 264, 265 (1966); Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 (1966); id., at 498 n. 1 (dissenting opinion); Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 421 n. 8 (1966); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S., at 195 (1964) (opinion of Brennan, J., joined by Goldberg,…
  • Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1977)
    …06, we have granted the Government’s motion on several occasions. See Watts v. United States, 422 U. S. 1032 (1975); Ackerson v. United States, 419 U. S. 1099 (1975); Hayles v. United States, 419 U. S. 892 (1974); Cf. Redmond v. United [*26] States, 384 U. S. 264 (1966); Marakar v. United States, 370 U. S. 723 (1962); Petite v. United States, 361 U. S. 529 (1960). The majority described the Government’s bad faith in the following terms: “In this case, an unidentified, but responsible, official within the D…

Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw