U. A. Local 38 Convalescent Trust Fund v. Braden

How later courts describe this case

• finding that Supreme Court’s holding in Casey that Pennsylvania law, which contained essentially identical provisions as Mississippi law, could be applied constitutionally precluded the need for additional evidence in facial challenge to Mississippi law
• trial court’s evidentiary orders excluding necessity, defense of others, and mistake of fact defenses did not violate 6th or 14th Amendments
• where this court observed that, absent a first amendment challenge, the court examines whether a statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the specific facts of the case before it
• upholding 24-hour waiting period and medical emergency exception
• § 1956(a)(3)(B) not void for vagueness