Cargal v. Georgia

Background

A man convicted under Georgia law for distributing obscene materials asked the Court to decide whether a trial judge’s instruction that allowed jurors to find "constructive knowledge" meets basic constitutional standards. The case reached the Supreme Court as a petition to review a decision from the Georgia courts, but the Court refused to take the case.

Reasoning

The Court’s action was simply to deny the petition for review; there is no majority opinion explaining the reasons. Because the Court did not grant review or rule on the legal question, it did not decide whether the kind of jury instruction used in this case is constitutional. Three Justices—Brennan, Stewart, and Marshall—disagreed with the denial and said the Court should hear the issue and consider reversing the conviction.

Real world impact

As a practical matter, the denial leaves the Georgia conviction and the state’s use of a "constructive knowledge" jury instruction intact for now. The constitutional question about what a jury must be told about a defendant’s state of mind remains unresolved by the high court. Because the Court did not decide the merits, future cases could bring the same issue back to the Justices for a final ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, urging the Court to grant review and noting related cases where the Court had accepted or considered the same question.