People v. Luros
California Supreme Court
Stanley Fleishman and Gerald J. Levie for Defendants and Respondents.
1Dissent · TobrinerTobriner, J.
I dissent. In my opinion the broad constitutional rationale underlying the United States Supreme Court’s recent obscenity decision of Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [22 L.Ed.2d 542, 89 S.Ct. 1243], significantly alters prior obscenity doctrine and dictates that the dismissal of the present indictment be affirmed. I therefore find it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether affirmative evidence of contemporary community standards must be presented at grand jury proceedings.
It is no novel revelation that the passage of years since the United States Supreme Court first attempted a…
Also in this document: Dissent · Harlan.
2Cases cited56 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Pierce v. Society of SistersSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.