BROWN v. OKLAHOMA
No. 71-6535
Supreme Court of the United States
408 U.S. 914
I would remand for reconsideration only in light of Chaplinsky.
[For dissenting opinion of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, see ante, p. 902.]
[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, see ante, p. 909.]
No. 71-6535. BROWN v. OKLAHOMA. Appeal from Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971), and Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972).
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, concurring in the result.
The statute involved in this case is considerably broader than the statute involved in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, ante, p. 901, and it has not been given a narrowing construction by the Oklahoma courts. Moreover, the papers filed in this case indicate that the language for which appellant was prosecuted was used in a political meeting to which appellant had been invited to present the Black Panther viewpoint. In these circumstances language of the character charged might well have been anticipated by the audience.
These factors lead me to conclude that this case is significantly different from Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, supra. I therefore concur in the Court‘s disposition of this case.
[For dissenting opinion of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, see ante, p. 902.]
[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, see ante, p. 909.]