McKinney v. Alabama
Headline: Civil obscenity rulings cannot be used to convict sellers who had no notice or chance to defend; Court reverses conviction and requires sellers be allowed to contest obscenity in criminal trials.
Holding: The Court reversed the conviction, holding a person cannot be criminally convicted based on a prior civil in rem obscenity decree to which they had no notice or opportunity to defend.
- Prevents convictions based solely on civil obscenity decrees without notice.
- Requires sellers be allowed to contest obscenity in their criminal trials.
- Vacates convictions like this one and sends cases back for new proceedings.
Summary
Background
A bookseller who ran a retail shop sold a magazine that a separate Alabama civil court had earlier declared obscene. He was later charged and convicted under a state law that made it a crime to sell material "judicially found to be obscene." He had not been a party to, given notice of, or allowed to participate in the prior civil proceeding that produced that decree.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the State could use a prior civil in rem adjudication to prevent a seller from defending in his own criminal trial. The Court held that it could not. Although obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, the Court said procedures deciding that question must protect freedom of expression. Because the bookseller had no notice or opportunity to contest the civil ruling, the civil decree could not be treated as binding in his criminal case. The Court reversed his conviction and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Real world impact
The decision means people who sell printed matter cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a civil obscenity judgment in which they did not participate. Sellers and distributors must have a chance to litigate obscenity in their own criminal trials. The ruling vacates this conviction and requires states to give adequate notice and opportunity to defend before using civil decrees to support criminal punishment.
Dissents or concurrances
Some Justices wrote separately. One Justice would have gone further and declared the Alabama law unconstitutional on its face; another concurred with reservations about issues the Court did not decide.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?