Supreme Court of The United States
----------------------------
Miller v.
California
----------------------------
Legal Brief
----------------------------
Konrad Schimmel and Heidi Ferster
Decided: June 21, 1973
April 13, 2010
I

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Facts of Case ………………………………………………………………………………….IV
The Vote with Names of Justice ……………………………………………………………..V
Procedural History …………………………………………………………………………...VI
Issues or Questions……………………………………………………………………………VII
Summary of majority opinion’s reasoning………………………………………………….VIII
Summaries of significant other opinions…………………………………………………….IX
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………..XI
III

Facts of Case
Mr. Miller sent five unsolicited advertising brochures to a restaurant through the mail. The brochures advertised four erotic books and one film. The recipient of the brochures complained to the police. The brochures contained pictures and drawings of
men and women engaging in many sexual activities.
1
Specific Law, Policy or Action being Challenged as Unconstitutional and Why
Whether the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail is protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee. There was amibguity on whether the material in question was obscence and whether it could be regulated.
2
1 “Miller v. California.” http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73 (Accessed April 12, 2010).
2 “Miller v. California.” http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73 (Accessed April 12, 2010).
IV

The Vote with Names of Justices
5-4 Decision
Chief Justice Warren Burger-majority
Justice William Douglas-minority
Justice William Brennan-minority
Justice Potter Stewart-minority
Justice Byron White-majority
Justice Thurgood Marshall-minority
Justice Harry Blackmun-majority
Justice Lewis Powell-majority
Justice William Rehnquist-majority
5 of Justices in the Majority
5 of Justices Concurring
4 of Justices Dissenting
Author of the Majority Opinion
Justice Warren Burger
Authors of the Other Opinions
Justice William Douglas
Justice William Brennan
3
3 “Miller v. California.” http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73 (Accessed April 12, 2010).
V

Procedural history of the case from lowest court to who is appealing to U.S.
It started off in the Superior Court of Orange County. It was affirmed by the
California Court of Appeals. After that, it was sent to the Supreme Court. It was argued on January 18-19, 1972. It was reargued November 7, 1972. Miller v California was
decided June 21, 1973.
4
4 “Miller v. California 413 US 15.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
court=US&vol=413&invol=15 (accessed April 12, 2010).
VI

Issues or Questions
The issues of this case include whether the first amendment protects obscene material. Also, another issue is how obscene material should be determined to be obscene. The main issue at hand is whether the current standard for determining obscenity still works.
5
The questions of this case include what is an appropriate test for obscenity?
Should this test set a national or state standard? How do courts distinguish what is and is not protected by the first amendment?
6
5
“Miller v. California.” Cornell University Law School, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/ historics/USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZO.html (Accessed April 1, 2010).
6
“Miller v. California.” Cornell University Law School, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/ historics/USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZO.html (Accessed April 1, 2010).
VII

Answers to questions by majority and Summary of majority opinion’s reasoning
The court answered the above questions and issues by stating that the current test for obscenity does not work and that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.
The Court also answered the question that a state focused test rather than a national standard should be given.
The court began its reasoning by first determining that the First Amendemnt does not protect obscenity. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the Supreme Court came to this same conclusion. This same view of obscene material has also been upheld in the majority oppions of Memoirs v. Massachusetts and
Roth v. United States.
7
These opinions all agree that obsecene material has no social value and thus is not protected free speech.
If obscenity was protected by the first amendment there would be no need for this case.
Since obsceneity can be regulated, then a proper test must be develeoped. Thus the court looked to its previous descions in Roth and Memoirs and made the three part Miller test. The test was developed based on the large quantity of obscenity cases on the court docket. This shows that there is a great need for a consistent test that all courts may use to judge obscenity cases farily.
The majority also reasones that they should give a widespreading test so as to give
all states a test that works for each of their own individual state ideals. 8
This continues with the courts previous descision in Roth v. United States to have community standards
and not national standards.
9 The Court found that the states have such diverse moral
convictions that no state should be subjected to the moral convictions of another.
7 “Miller v. California (1972).” http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/miller.html
(Accessed April 1, 2010).
8 “
Miller v. California (1972).” http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/miller.html
(Accessed April 1, 2010).
9 “
Miller v. California (1972).” http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/miller.html
(Accessed April 1, 2010).
VIII

Summaries of significant other opinions
Some of the Justices dissented the majority oppinion. They did so because they saw the ruling as being a limitation of the first ammendment right to freedom of speech.
They base this on Breard v. Alexandria where it was ruled that the first ammendment should not be repressed because to do would limit free press and speech.
10
Mr. Justice Douglas, dissented based on the faliure of any court to develope a good working definition of obscenity. The supreme court attemted to develope such definitions in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, and Ginzburg v. United States.
Most of these cases have been deidied by a slim majority pointing to the lack of agreement on finding a deffinition for obscenity. These definitions have also changed significantly over time. In early cases, like Ginzburg v. United States, a man was put in jail for distributing sexual materials that had never been outlawed before that point. He got sentenced to five years in jail for a crime that had not been a crime before his case.
Later in Ginsberg v. New York, t he courts found that minors should not be exposed to overly sexual material. In later cases, like Memoirs v. Massachusetts and Miller v.
California, the court sought to define obscenity in a way that defined it but made it loose by depending on what the average person in the community that the suppoesed obscene
material appears consdiers inaproriate.
11
A key concern of the dissent holds that those that have been convicted based on rulings that where not decieded yet should not be upheld. This point comes from the descision of Bouie v. City of Columbia, where a man was brought to court for being asked to leave a property. The man was not convicted because their was no proper warning before he entered the property. The dissenting justices see this case as setting a precedent that people should not be convicted of crimes that they were not made aware of prior to committing the crime. This would protect those that have published material that would now be considered obscene from being punished for something that they were, at the time, ignorant of.
While this dissent brings up an important concern it does not refute the need to give the lower courts a test to determine what is and is not obcene. The lack of a defintion would make it difficult for the lower courts to decide obscenity cases, as
10
“Miller v. California.” Cornell University Law School, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/ historics/USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZO.html (Accessed April 1, 2010).
11
Miller v. California (1972). http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/miller.html
(Accessed April 1, 2010).
IX

evidenced by obscenity cases continuing to be appealed to the Supreme Court prior to the descision of Miller v. California. Also, though some may argue that the first amendment should never be infringed upon for any reason, there does always seem to be a limit to how freedom can go. Freedom of speech has already been limited to not disclosing national secrets. The debate between the dissent and majority could go on a long time, but the dissent would still not have a solid reason to not limit obscene speech.
X

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Miller v. California represents a landmark decision in obscenity law. The three fold test of (A) An average person applying contemporary local community standards, finds that the work, taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest,
(B) The work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law, and (C) The work in question lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (SLAP). This test was rightfully made based on former cases and current issues. Miller v. California should continue as a precedent for years to come as it provides a fair way of determining what is and is not obscene.
Respectfully submitted,
Konrad Schimmel and Heidi Ferster
XI