Robinson v. Georgia

1978-04-24

Headline: Court vacates obscenity conviction and sends case back to Georgia courts in light of a ruling that five-person juries are unconstitutional, affecting a bookstore employee convicted for selling a magazine.

Holding: The Court vacated the Georgia conviction and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Ballew v. Georgia.

Real World Impact:

Vacates the conviction and requires Georgia courts to reconsider under the jury-size ruling.
May lead to a retrial because obscenity and possession claims were not finally resolved.
Raises whether the obscenity law is too vague or requires proof the seller knew it was obscene.

Topics: obscenity law, jury size rules, criminal conviction, retrial procedures

Summary

Background

Ernest H. Robinson, an employee at an adult bookstore, was arrested after selling an allegedly obscene magazine to an Atlanta police officer. Police also seized items described as devices for sexual stimulation. A five-person jury convicted him of selling the magazine and possessing the devices; he was sentenced to 12 months in jail and a $1,000 fine, and the Georgia Court of Appeals had affirmed the conviction.

Reasoning

The central question addressed by the Court was whether the recent decision about five-person juries requires reconsideration of convictions decided by such juries. The Court vacated the Georgia judgment and sent the case back for further consideration because Ballew v. Georgia—deciding the legality of five-member juries—affects the validity of this jury trial. Some Justices argued that additional constitutional issues deserve review, including whether the law required proof that the seller knew the material was obscene (scienter) and whether the obscenity law was too unclear (void-for-vagueness).

Real world impact

The immediate effect is that Robinson’s conviction is no longer final and Georgia courts must reconsider the case under the new jury-size decision. The obscenity and possession claims were not finally resolved, so a new trial is possible unless those other constitutional questions bar retrial. The decision mainly affects people convicted by five-person juries and courts handling similar obscenity prosecutions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Stewart and Brennan (joined by Marshall) dissented from parts of the Court’s handling; they urged either reversal or further argument on the scienter and vagueness questions to determine whether retrial should be allowed.