Bartell v. United States
Headline: Court upheld conviction for sending an obscene letter by mail, ruling an indictment may omit explicit text if the mailed item is identified by time, place, and addressee, making prosecution possible without printing salacious words.
Holding:
- Allows prosecutors to indict for obscene mailings without reproducing explicit text.
- Defendants can request a bill of particulars for more detail before trial.
Summary
Background
A man named Lester P. Bartell was indicted for depositing an allegedly obscene letter in the United States post office at Sioux Falls on November 24, 1911. The indictment described the letter as filthy, obscene, lewd, and unfit to be set forth in the record and said the envelope was addressed to Miss Zella Delleree in Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Bartell demurred, arguing the indictment did not state sufficient facts or inform him of the nature and cause of the accusation as required by the Constitution. He was convicted, sentenced to prison, and appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the indictment.
Reasoning
The Court examined whether an indictment must reproduce the obscene words or whether a general description and other identifying details can suffice. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court explained that courts may omit indecent text from the record when the crime is otherwise described with reasonable certainty. The opinion noted that an accused may request a bill of particulars to identify the specific parts the prosecution will rely on, and that granting such a request is within the trial court’s discretion. Here the indictment named the date and post office, identified the envelope’s addressee, and said Bartell knew the letter’s character. Bartell did not ask for a bill of particulars and showed no surprise when the letter was produced at trial. Applying precedents such as Bennett, Rosen, Durland, and Dunbar, the Court concluded the indictment was adequate and affirmed the judgment.
Real world impact
This decision confirms that prosecutors can charge someone for mailing obscene matter without printing the explicit text in the indictment, provided the mailed item is identified by time, place, and addressee. Defendants keep the ability to ask the court for a bill of particulars if they need more detail before trial. The opinion also recognizes that parties may use extra evidence, including parol testimony, to identify the subject matter of a prior conviction when needed.
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?