Hamling v. United States
- Decided
- October 15, 1974
- Docket
- 73-507
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,897 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “[i]t is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself’ — United States v. Vega-Molina (2005)
- concluding that, in the context of obscenity, the prosecution must prove that the defendant “knew the character and nature of the materials,” not that they were legally obscene — Outmezguine v. State (1994)
- holding that the scienter element in the statute prohibiting the mailing of obscene material required only that the defendant know the content of the material, not that it was legally obscene — Outmezguine v. State (1993)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Rbhnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
On March 5, 1971, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California indicted petitioners William L. Hamling, Earl Kemp, Shirley R. Wright, David L. Thomas, Reed Enterprises, Inc., and Library Service, Inc., on 21 counts of an indictment charging use of the mails to carry an obscene book, The Illustrated Presidential Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, and an obscene advertisement, which gave information as to where, how, and from whom and by what means the Illustrated Report might be obtained, and of conspiracy to commit the above offenses, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 2, 371, and 1461.[1] Prior to trial, petitioners moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it failed to inform them of the charges, and that the grand jury had insufficient evidence before it to return an indictment and was improperly instructed on the law. Petitioners also challenged the petit jury panel and moved to strike the venire on the ground that there had been an unconstitutional exclusion of all persons under 25 years of age. The District Court denied all of these motions.
Following a jury trial, petitioners were convicted on 12 counts of mailing and conspiring to mail the obscene [*92] advertisement.[2] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 481 F. 2d 307 (1973). The jury was unable to reach a verdict with regard to the counts of the indictment which charged the mailing of the allegedly obscene Illustrated Report.[3] The advertisement found obscene is a single sheet brochure mailed to approximately 55,000 persons in various parts of the United States; one side of the brochure contains a collage of photographs from the Illus-strated Report; the other side gives certain information and an order blank from which the Illustrated Report could be ordered.
Statutes cited
- 18 U.S.C. § 2
- 18 U.S.C. § 1461
- 19 U.S.C. § 1305
- 18 U.S.C. § 1462
- 2 U.S.C. § 192
- 39 U.S.C. § 4354
- 39 U.S.C. § 3008
- 39 U.S.C. § 3011
- 28 U.S.C. § 1863
Cite this
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.