Harold Wasserman v. The Municipal Court of the Alhambra Judicial District

449 F.2d 787
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 3, 1971·No. 26757_1·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. As we have held that we are required to do, we have made our own “independent, de novo constitutional judgment * * * as to whether the [advertising leaflet] involved is constitutionally protected.” (Childs v. Oregon, 9 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 272, 275). We agree with the District Judge that the leaflet was properly found by the California courts to fall within the three part definition of obscenity stated in Redrup v. New York, 1967, 386 U.S. 767, 770-771, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515, and in Cal.Penal Code § 311(a). See also Ginzburg v. United States, 1966, 383 U.S. 463, 86 S.Ct. 942, 16 L.Ed.2d 31.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Harold Wasserman v. The Municipal Court of the Alhambra Judicial District, 449 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1971).

449 F.2d 787 (Harold Wasserman v. The Municipal Court of the Alhambra Judicial District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related