CANGIANO
v.
UNITED STATES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Local Community Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,
dissenting.
Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of transporting allegedly obscene materials in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1465, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
“Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of sale or distribution any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, 491 F. 2d 906 (1974).
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, which is similar in scope to § 1465,1 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.” 413 U. S., 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, and, since the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was rendered after Orito, reverse.* 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).
Finally, it does not appear from the petition and response that the obscenity of the disputed materials was adjudged by applying local community standards. Based on my dissent in Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 141 (1974), I believe that, consistent with the Due Process Clause, petitioner must be given an opportunity to have his case decided on, and to introduce evidence relevant to, the legal standard upon which his conviction has ultimately come to depend. Thus, even on its own terms, the Court should vacate the judgment below and remand for a determination whether petitioner should be afforded a new trial under local community standards.
*
Although four of us would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
United States v. Bertolotti, 529 F.2d 149 (2d Cir. 1975)…ts.” This Court has previously held that where a conspiracy is charged, the Government must establish a “specific” intent to violate the substantive statute beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Cangiano, 491 F. 2d 906 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 904, 95 S.Ct. 188, 42 L.Ed.2d 149 (1974). The charge challenged here cannot be reconciled with this requirement. United States v. Cangiano, supra, at 910-11. We have for many years warned against the use of this type of a charge, United States v. Bara…
-
United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566 (1st Cir. 1981)…hes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the specific intent to violate the substantive statute.’ ” United States v. Mora, 598 F. 2d 682, 683 (1st Cir. 1979), quoting United States v. Cangiano, 491 F. 2d 906, 909 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 904, 95 S.Ct. 188, 42 L.Ed.2d 149 (1974). Two types of intent must be proved: intent to agree and intent to commit the substantive offense. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 443 n.20, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 2877 n.20, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (19…
-
United States v. Soto, 716 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1983)…y, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the Government establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the specific intent to violate the substantive statute[s].” United States v. Cangiano, 491 F. 2d 906, 909 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 904, 933, 95 S.Ct. 188, 205, 42 L.Ed.2d 149 (1974). The government here produced no evidence whatever linking defendant to the conspiracies. Instead, we believe that on the basis of association alone, the jurors “let their imaginations run rampant.” U…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1974)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (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)
- United States v. Cosmo "Gus" Cangiano and Elana Marie Isola, 491 F.2d 906 (2d Cir. 1974)