Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Marks Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 01, 1977

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

71 entries 6 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Gregg Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1976
  2. Smith Vs. Goguen US Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1974
  3. United States Vs. Orito US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1973
  4. Frank Vs. Mangum US Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1915
  5. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  6. United States Vs. Cutting US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1865
  7. Marks v. United
    Search
  8. States - 430 U.S. 188 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Marks v. United
    Search
  9. States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) Marks v. United
    Search
  10. obscene materials in violation of a federal statute. The conduct that gave rise to the charge occurred before Miller v. California
    Search
  11. that those standards may impose criminal liability for conduct not punishable under the standards announced in Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  12. U. S. 413 . Bouie v. City
    Search
  13. principle announced in Miller that would serve to benefit petitioners must be applied in their case. Hamling v. United
    Search
  14. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question, not fully answered in Hamling v. United
    Search
  15. States, 418 U. S. 87 (1974), whether the Page 430 U. S. 189 standards announced in Miller v. California
    Search
  16. Trial did not begin until the following October. In the interim, on June 21, 1973, this Court decided Miller v. California
    Search
  17. U. S. 123 , 413 U. S. 129 -130, and n. 7 (1973), decided the same day as Miller. See Hamling v. United
    Search
  18. they were entitled to jury instructions not under Miller, but under the more favorable formulation of Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  19. II The Ex Post Facto Clause is a limitation upon the powers of the Legislature, See Calder v. Bull
    Search
  20. Dall. 386 (1798), and does not, of its own force, apply to the Judicial Branch of government. Frank v. Mangum
    Search
  21. will give rise to criminal penalties -- is fundamental to our concept of constitutional liberty. See United States v. Page
    Search
  22. Lanzetta v. New
    Search
  23. As such, that right is protected against judicial action by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Bouie v. City
    Search
  24. Id. at 378 U. S. 353 -354. Similarly, in Rabe v. Washington
    Search
  25. one must judge whether Miller expanded criminal liability by looking not to Memoirs, but to Roth v. United
    Search
  26. may be suppressed. Id. at 383 U. S. 421 . See Ginzburg v. United
    Search
  27. insist on fair warning when a statute regulates expression and implicates First Amendment values. See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  28. Bouie, that the Due Process Clause precludes the application to petitioners of the standards announced in Miller v. California
    Search
  29. At the same time, we reaffirm our Page 430 U. S. 197 holding in Hamling v. United
    Search
  30. United States v. Marks
    Search
  31. and United States v. Friedman
    Search
  32. United States v. Wasserman
    Search
  33. United States v. Sherpix
    Search
  34. cases, both conduct and trial occurred prior to Miller, and the jury instructions were derived from Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  35. U. S. 413 (1966) (plurality opinion). United States v. Thevis
    Search
  36. United States v. Palladino
    Search
  37. F.2d 499 (CA1 1974). The Courts of Appeals there, foreshadowing to some extent our later decision in Hamling v. United
    Search
  38. cases presenting similar facts, the Fifth Circuit has applied its holding in Thevis I. See, e.g.,United States v. Linetsky
    Search
  39. United States v. Thevis
    Search
  40. F.2d 989 (1976) ( Thevis II ), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 928 (1976). See also United States v. Hill
    Search
  41. U. S. 952 (1975). And the Ninth Circuit, following Hamling, has reached the same result. United States v. Cutting
    Search
  42. of the Court, the Court began the practice of disposing of obscenity cases in brief per curiam decisions. Redrup v. New
    Search
  43. was the first. At least 31 cases were decided in this fashion. They are collected in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton
    Search
  44. Books, Inc. v. United
    Search
  45. United States v. 5 Mm. Motion Picture Film, 432 F.2d 705 (CA2 1970), cert. dismissed sub nom. United States v. Unicorn
    Search
  46. United States v. Ten
    Search
  47. United States v. Groner
    Search
  48. United States v. Pellegrino
    Search
  49. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Oklahoma
    Search
  50. Huffman v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial