Byron White

Name: Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court
Author: Byron White

Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (1975)

Summary

“Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court”, published in 1975, is a work by Byron White. It explores elements such as the District Court, films and Miller II.

Quotes from Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (Byron White)

Byron White, Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (1975)

“ Absent at least some effort by the District Court to impeach the entitlement of the prosecuting officials to rely on repeated judicial authorization for their conduct, we cannot agree that bad faith and harassment were made out. Indeed, such conclusion would not necessarily follow even if it were shown that the state courts were in error on some one or more issues of state or federal law. [21]
[p. 352] In the last analysis, it seems to us that the District Court's judgment rests almost entirely on its conclusion that the California obscenity statute was unconstitutional and unenforceable. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (1975)

“ Miller II, however, had nothing to do with the validity of multiple seizures as an issue wholly independent of the validity of the obscenity statutes. [p. 346] That issue--the validity, in light of Heller, of the challenged application of the search warrant statutes--remained in the case after the Miller II dismissal. Indeed, although the District Court based its injunctive order on the unconstitutionality of the obscenity statutes, the injunction also interfered with the enforcement of the California search warrant statutes, necessarily on constitutional grounds. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (1975)

“ Harris to apply, the state criminal proceedings must be pending on the day the federal case is filed. Indeed, the issue has been left open; [17] and we now hold that where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court, the principles of Younger v. Harris should apply in full force. Here, appellees were charged [p. 350] on January 15, prior to answering the federal case and prior to any proceedings whatsoever before the three-judge court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (1975)

“ However, the prosecution denied any agreement to return the suppressed films, successfully appealed the suppression order, and asserted that the District Court's order interfered with the prosecution of its case. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (1975)

“ New York, 413 U.S. 483, 492 (1973) , of films or books by seizing them in greater quantities than is necessary for use as evidence in a criminal case or other judicial proceedings. However, in reversing the Municipal Court's suppression order, see supra, at 340-341, we take the Superior Court's reference to Aday to mean that the November seizures effected by search warrant were valid under that case and under the state statute once a prompt adversary hearing to determine obscenity is held, which hearing in its view would remove any constitutional objection under Heller v. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (1975)

“ Superior [p. 341] Court, 55 Cal.2d 789, 362 P.2d 47 (1961) , and saying the "requisite prompt adversary determination of obscenity under Heller v. New York...has been held." [10]
On September 30, the three-judge court denied appellants' motions, reaffirmed its June 4 Younger v. Harris ruling and, after concluding it was not bound by the dismissal of Miller II, adhered to its judgment that the California statute was invalid under the Federal Constitution. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (1975)

“ Judge Ferguson did, however, issue a preliminary injunction against further seizures of the two films. Title 28 U.S.C. §§2284 (3) and (5) forbid a single judge to issue an interlocutory injunction in a three-judge-court case. The status of Judge Ferguson's preliminary injunction is not at issue here.
11 ↑ . Because the amended judgment was entered in response to timely motions for rehearing and to amend the June 4 judgment, appellees insist that it is the amended judgment that is before the Court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (1975)

“ Soon after Miller II and the reversal of the suppression order, the Superior Court of Orange County reaffirmed its order of November 27, 1973, and directed additional seizures of "Deep Throat." Seizures under warrant were also made of the film "The Devil in Miss Jones." At a show-cause proceeding before Judge Ferguson sitting as a single judge, the judge declined to hold appellants in contempt for failing to return the copies of "Deep Throat" covered by the June 4 judgment. His oral ruling was:
"THE COURT: You do not have to argue about that at all any more. Mr. ”

Byron White

Summary

Quotes from Hicks v. Miranda — Opinion of the Court (Byron White)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature