Ballew v. Georgia

Background

Petitioner was convicted in Georgia for distributing obscene materials under a 1975 Georgia law. He asked the Court to decide whether jury instructions that allow a finding of "constructive knowledge" — that is, treating someone as if they knew something even if they did not actually know it — meet constitutional minimum standards. This was the petitioner’s second time asking this Court to decide the exact question; the Court had previously granted review in Ballew v. Georgia but did not reach the issue.

Reasoning

The central question presented was whether juries may be told to find "constructive knowledge" in an obscenity prosecution and whether that instruction satisfies constitutional requirements. The Court's action was to deny review, so it did not answer that question on the merits. A dissenting justice argued the Court should accept review and address the issue because it had previously agreed to consider the same question in an earlier related case.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined review, the Georgia conviction remains undisturbed and the broader constitutional question about constructive knowledge in obscenity cases remains unresolved by this Court. Prosecutors and defendants in similar cases may continue to rely on or challenge such jury instructions in lower courts. Appellate courts below will continue to confront the question in other cases. This was not a decision resolving the constitutional rule on the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, dissented from the denial, stating he would grant review and, if necessary, summarily reverse; he cited Ballew v. Georgia and other recent cases where he dissented from dismissals or remands (Sewell, Teal, Robinson, Sanders).