The outcome of the case was the court vacated the state court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Holding: Yes. It was appropriate for the Court to use the perception of the local public as the basis for judging whether the brochures were obscene or not since they were the ones who received the pictures and filed a complaint against it for they believe it was unnecessary and uncalled for since they did not request for those brochures to be delivered to them. , Cal. Penal Code 311.2 (a) states that an individual who knowingly sends out obscene material is guilty of misdemeanor
Facts: The petitioner was a leader of Ku Klux Klan. The petitioner declared speeches which were aired on television. He was charged with violating Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2923.1. The law stated that it was not within the confines of law to teach terrorism or any criminal act and that it is also considered unlawful to organize a group or committee which aims to advocate syndicalism and promote acts of terrorism and crimes. The case was raised to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court finalized decision that Ohio Rev. Code Ann. ...
The US Supreme Court overturned petitioner's conviction because the decree upon which his conviction was based was unconstitutional.
Issue: Was it lawful for the Supreme Court to reverse the decision using the decree U.S. Const. amends I and XIV as their main basis of reversal
Holding: Yes. There was no significant and apparent evidence that provided any connection between advocating terrorism and syndicalism and organizing an assembly to execute crime and terrorism. The judgment of Ohio's Court was based on the context wherein the speech of the defendant was made. The speech was said during a rally using phrases such as 'Bury the Niggers". The Supreme Court based their judgment purely on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There was no proof that the defendant was organizing the group to uphold and execute his ideals.
Style: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; 86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1966
Facts: This involved four cases of similar nature. The United States Supreme Court inverted the charges for three cases and confirmed the fourth one. The main basis of the Supreme Court decision was the violation of U.S. Const. amend. The cases showed that when the individuals involved were subject for interrogation, they were not informed by about their right to remain silent and their right of representation. After these warnings were given, a defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. These warnings were not disclosed prior to the investigation and questioning therefore there was no effective waiver that took place. The individuals were not protected against self-incrimination which is a necessary procedure