*1 since the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was rendered after Onto,
I also note that in Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 (1974), this Court held that federal obscenity prosecu tions did not rеquire proof of a uniform national standard of obscenity and juror sitting on that.a a fеderal obscen ity case permitted to draw on the knowledge of the community from which he came “in deciding what con clusion 'the average person, apрlying contemporary com munity standards’ would reach given in a Id., case.” at 105. Here, hоwever, State of at Oregon, the time of petitioners’ trial, had no policy prohibiting the distribu tion of obscene materials, unless minors were involved. This case, therefore, raises the important question whether a uniform national standard should be applied in this circumstance. Decision of that question certainly merits plenary consideration and oral argument.
In these circumstances, have no occasion to сonsider the other question presented by petitioners merits plenary review. See Heller v. York, New U. S. 483, 494 (1973)
No. 75-707. Sanders Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justiсe Stew- art and Mr. Justice Marshall join, dissenting.
Petitioner was convicted in the Criminal Court of Fulton County, Ga., on two counts of exhibiting obscene materials in violation of Ga. Code § 26-2101 Ann. (now superseded by Ga. Acts 1975, p. 498). The con- victions were based upon two exhibitions of a motion picture film entitled “Deep Throat.” Section 26-2101 (a) provides in pertinent рart:
“A person commits the offense of distributing obscene materials when he . . . exhibits or оther- *2 wise any to person any disseminates obscene ma- any terial of description, knowing the obscene na- ture . . thereof .
Under § (b): 26-2101
“Material is obscene if considered as a whole, applying community standards, predominant its appeal prurient tоis that a shameful interest, is, or morbid in interest sex nudity, or and excretion, utterly without social redeeming value and in if, addition, it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in describing or representing such matters ..
The judgment of conviction ultimately by affirmed the Georgia Supreme 234 Ga. Court, 216 586, S. E. 2d 838 (1975).
It is my view that “at least in the absence.of distribu- tion to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on thе basis of their allegedly ‘obscene’ contents.” Paris Adult I Theatre Slaton, 413 U. 49, 113 J., dissenting). It is clear that, by tested that constitu- tional standard, § 26-2101 (a), as it incorporates the defi- nition of obscene material 26-2101 § is (b), constitu- tionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its faсe. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller California, 413 U. S. 47 15, I (1973), would grant therefore certio- аnd, rari since the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court was rendered Miller, after In that cir- I cumstance, have no to occasion consider whether the other questiоn presented by petitioner merits plenary review. Heller See v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, (1973) (Brennan,
Finally, it does not appear from the petition and re sponse that obscenity thе disputed materials was adjudged by applying community local standards. Based on my dissent in Hamling States, v. United 418 U. S. (1974), believe that, consistent with the Due Process Clause, petitioner be given must an opportunity to have his case decided to on, and introduce evidenсe relevant to, the legal upon standard which his convictions have ultimately cоme depend. to Thus, even on its own terms, the Court should judgment vacate the below and remand for a determination petitioner should be afforded a new trial under local community standards.
No. 75-735. Pandilidis A. 6th C. v. United States. Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice White would grant certiorаri.
No. 75-737. Arkansas Louisiana Gas v. Federal Co. Power D. et C. A. Cir. Commission C. al. Certiorari denied. Mr. took part no in the con- Justice Powell sideration or decision this petition.
No. 75-769. Burеau of Revenue of New v. Mexico Fox. Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied for failure to pеtition file within the provided time by 28 U. C. S. §2101 (c). Reported below: See 87 N. M. P. 2d 1234. Ripon No. 75-884. et Society, Inc., National al.
Republican Party et al.; and Republican No. 75-991. National Party et al. Ripon al. C. A. et Society, C. Cir. D. Motion Inc., of Senator Edward W. et Brooke al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae No. 75-884 granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 173 U. App. D. 350, 525 C. F. 2d 567.