Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Sherwin et al. v. United States, 1978 â 437 U.S. 909 · caselaw · US
Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
Sherwin et al. v. United States
437 U.S. 909·Supreme Court of the United States·1978
with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 77-1196.
Sherwin et al. v. United States.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[DISSENT â Mr. Justice Brennan,]
Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,
dissenting.
Petitioners were convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California of multiple counts of knowingly transporting allegedly obscene materials in interstate commerce by common carrier in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 1462 and 1465 (1976 ed.). Although it overturned convictions on some counts, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed petitionersâ convictions on three counts and also petitioner Sherwinâs conviction for conspiracy under 18 U. S. C. § 371 (1976 ed.).
Petitioners ask this Court to consider whether âa standard of scienter which authorizes obscenity convictions on mere knowledge of the âsexual orientationâ of material impermis-sibly chill [s] the dissemination of expression protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.â Pet. for Cert. 2. This question is much the same as that presented in Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U. S. 223 (1978), Sewell v. Georgia, 435 U. S. 982 (1978), Robinson v. Georgia, 435 U. S. 991 (1978), and Teal v. Georgia, 435 U. S. 989 (1978). For the reasons stated in my dissent from denial of certiorari in Sewell, supra, at 982, I would hear oral argument on this issue. Barring this, I would summarily reverse petitionersâ convictions. See, e. g., United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139, 147 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Christian v. United States, 432 U. S. 910 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Danley v. United States, 424 U. S. 929 (1976) (same); Kutler v. United States, 423 U. S. 959 (1975) (same).
âWhoever brings into the "United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerceâ
â(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character . . .
âShall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both . . . .â
âWhoever 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.â