Summary
In Wasserman v. Municipal Court, 449 F.2d 787 (9 Cir. 1971), it appeared that Wasserman had been convicted of violating California Penal Code § 311, a misdemeanor for distributing an obscene brochure.
Summary of this case from United States v. ElkinsOpinion
No. 26757.
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.
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.