Ct. App. D.C. Reported below: 311 A. 2d 506.
Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, being of the view that any federal ban on obscenity is prohibited by the First Amendment (see United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 130 (1973) (DOUGLAS, J., dissenting)), would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting.
Petitioner was convicted in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions of presenting an obscene film in violation of D.C. Code § 22-2001 (a)(1)(B) (1973), which provides in pertinent part: "It shall be unlawful in the District of Columbia for a person knowingly . . . to present . . . any obscene, indecent, or filthy play, dance, motion picture, or other performance." The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed, 277 A. 2d 477, and this Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of
that the court below performed such a review, since that responsibility was not made clear until Jenkins. Petitioner has thus never been provided the independent judicial review to which the Court held him entitled in Jenkins. At a minimum, the Court should vacate the judgment below and remand for such a review.
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, ante, p. 141, 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 ...