Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

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

449 F.2d 787

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1971-12-03
Topic: general

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).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Harold Wasserman v. The Municipal Court of the Alhambra Judicial District. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 7 opinions

WASSERMAN v. MUN. COURT OF ALHAMBRA JUD. DIST.,449 F.2d 787(9th Cir. 1971)

Harold WASSERMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT OF the

ALHAMBRA JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 26757.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

November 4, 1971.

Rehearing Denied December 3, 1971.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; W.P. Gray, Judge.

Edwin M. Rosendahl (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.

Robert Lederman, Deputy Dist. Atty. (argued), Joseph P. Busch, Jr., Dist. Atty., of L.A., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent-appellee.

Before BARNES, DUNIWAY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

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 novoconstitutional 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.Page 788