HARDING
v.
UNITED STATES
Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall concur,
dissenting.
Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on charges of using an express company for carriage of allegedly obscene matter in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1462, which provides as follows:
“Whoever . . . knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce—
“(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character
“Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both . . .
I adhere to my dissent in United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139, 147 (1973), in which, speaking of 18 U. S. C. § 1462, I expressed the view that “[wjhatever the extent of the Federal Government’s power to bar the distribution of allegedly obscene material to juveniles or the offensive exposure of such material to unconsenting adults, the statute before us is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.” Id., at 147-148. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 47 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and remand for further proceedings consistent with my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 73 (1973). In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Pryba, 502 F.2d 391 (D.C. Cir. 1974)…States, 391 F. 2d 61 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 849, 89 S.Ct. 136, 21 L.Ed.2d 119 (1968); Gold v. United States, 378 F. 2d 588, 590-591 (9th Cir. 1967); United States v. Harding, 475 F. 2d 480, 483-484 (10th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 414 U.S. 964, 94 S.Ct. 274, 38 L.Ed.2d 211 (1973). See also United States v. Wilkerson, 478 F. 2d 813, 815 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Ogden, 485 F. 2d 536, 538-539 (9th Cir. 1973). . See cases cited supra notes 41-42. . The Supreme Court has yet to pass…
-
United States v. Hairston, 495 F.2d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 1974)…ise provide, by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience.” . See, e. g., United States v. Harding, 475 F. 2d 480, 485 (10th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 414 U.S. 964, 94 S.Ct. 274, 38 L.Ed.2d 211 (1973); United States v. Jansen, 475 F. 2d 312 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 826, 94 S.Ct. 130, 38 L.Ed.2d 59 (1973); United States v. O’Day, 467 F. 2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 912, 93 S.Ct. 975…
-
Pleasant v. Lovell, 876 F.2d 787 (10th Cir. 1989)…as a “joint venture” or a product of collusion between the private person and the federal agents. United States v. Ford, 525 F. 2d 1308, 1312 (10th Cir.1975); United States v. Harding, 475 F. 2d 480, 483 (10th Cir.), vacated on [*797] other grounds, 414 U.S. 964, 94 S.Ct. 274, 38 L.Ed.2d 211 (1973). We subsequently have defined a private act as “a unilateral act by an individual with no encouragement or acquiescence by the officers.” United States v. Lamport, 787 F. 2d 474, 476 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1973)
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1973)
- Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1973)
- United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139 (U.S. 1973)