Legal Cases

Part: 
Four
Chapter: 
 

The following chart and accompanying material identify cases in which the movie "Deep Throat," "The Devil in Miss Jones," or "Debbie Does Dallas" was named as part of a criminal prosecution or civil action. The list is not exhaustive as unreported decisions are not included.

 
The Devil in Miss Jones
Debbie Does Dallas
Deep Throat
TOTALS
State Criminal Prosecutions
8A
1c
17K
26
State Criminal Convictions Upheld on Appeal
3B
0
9M
12
Federal Prosecutions Federal Criminal
0
1H
9L
10
Convictions Upheld on Appeal
0
0
4N
4
State Civil Actions
8c
0
9o
17
State Civil Actions
3B
0
6Q
9
Affirmed on Appeal Federal Civil
1D
1E
10P
12
Actions Federal Civil Actions Affirmed on Appeal
1F
1J
4R
6

Notes

  1. See, Colbert v. State No. 01-82-0943-CR, Slip. Op. (Ct. of App. Texas. Aug. 9, 1984); Commonwealth v. Capri Enterprises, Inc., 365 Mass. 179, 310 N.E. 2d 326(1974) (found guilty of exhibiting an obscene motion picture; conviction was reversed: statute was unconstitutional under Miller standard); People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314, 257 N.W. 2d 902(1977) (convicted for exhibiting obscene films; reversed on appeal on the basis that the city standard was preempted by state law); State v. XLNT Corp., 536 S. W.2d 836(Mo. App. 1976) (conviction of possession with intent to circulate obscene film); State v. Riggins, 645 S.W.2d 113(Mo. App. 1983) (conviction for promotion of pornography in the second degree); City of Sioux Falls v. Mini-Kota Art Theaters, Inc., 247 N. W.2d 676(S.D. 1976) (convicted of violating city obscenity ordinance); Circle Cinema, Inc. v. Town of Colonie, 82 Misc. 2d 527, 371 N.Y.S.2d 344(1975) (seizure procedure did not meet constitutional standards); Commonwealth v. MacDonald, 464 Pa. 435, 347 A.2d 390(1975) (criminal complaint quashed for failure to meet Miller constitutional standards).

  2. See, State v. XLNT Corp., 536 S. W.2d 836(Mo. App. 1976) (conviction for possession with intent to circulate was affirmed); State v. Riggins, 645 S.W.2d 113(Mo. App. 1983) (conviction for promotion of pornography in second degree was affirmed); City of Sioux Falls v. Mini-Kota Art Theaters, Inc., 247 S.W.2d 676(S.D. 1976) (conviction for violation of city obscenity statute was affirmed).

  3. See, Fairvilla Twin Cinema II v. State ex rel. Eagan, 353 So.2d 909(Fla. App. 1977) (enjoined further showing of allegedly obscene films); State ex rel. Gerstein v. Walwick Theater Corp., 298 So. 2d 406(Fla. 1974) (petition to enjoin showing of film denied by trial court; reversed on appeal and complaint reinstated); Miller v. Robert Emmett Goodrich Corp., 53 Mich. App. 267, 218 N.W.2d 771(1974) (order granting injunction was vacated on appeal); State ex rel. Cahalan v. Diversified Theatrical Corp., 59 Mich. App. 223, 229 N.W.2d 389(1975) (nuisance action brought against theater for exhibiting obscene films); Kent City Prosecutor v Robert Emmett Goodrich Corp., 396 Mich. 253, 240 N.W.2d 242(1976) (civil obscenity statute could not be brought to prohibit the exhibition of a film); State ex rel. Cahalan v. Diversified Theatrical Corp., 396 Mich. 244, 240 N.W.2d 460(1976) (statute deeming places of lewdness, assignation or prostitution to be public nuisances did not apply to motion picture houses); Lazarus v. Yorkview Theater Corp., 74 Misc. 2d 729, 345 N.Y.S.2d 413(1973) (court enjoined the sale or distribution of film); Vergari v Pierre Production, Inc., 42 A.D. 950, 352 N.Y.S.2d 34(1974) (trial court denied preliminary injunction to prohibit exhibition of film; reversed and injunction granted on appeal).

  4. See, United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, 536 F. Supp. 50(S.D. N.Y. 1981) (forfeiture and condemnation).

  5. See, Fairvilla Twin Cinema II v State ex rel. Eagan, 353 So. 2d 909(Fla. App. 1977) (affirmed order enjoining further showing of allegedly obscene films); State ex rel. Cahalan v. Diversified Theatrical Corp., 59 Mich. App. 223, 229 N. W. 2d 389 (1975) (nuisance action brought against theater owner; order enjoining exhibition of films affirmed); Vergari v. Pierre Productions, Inc., 42 A.D. 950, 352 N.Y.S.2d 34(1974) (preliminary injunction granted on appeal).

  6. See, United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, 536 F. Supp. 50(S.D.N.Y. 1981) (forfeiture of obscene materials).

  7. See, People v. P.J. Video, Inc. d/b/a Network Video and James Erhardt, No. 270, Slip. Op. (N.Y. Ct. App. July 5, 1985) (motion to suppress granted).

  8. See, United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, 709 F. 2d 132(2d Cir. 1983) (seized items found not obscene).

  9. See, United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, 536 F. Supp. 50(S.D.N.Y. 1981) (forfeiture and condemnation of obscene materials).

  10. See, United States v. Various Articles of Merchandise, 536 F.Supp. 50 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (forfeiture and condemnation of obscene materials).

  11. See, Dexter v. State case number 223,343 (Boxer Co. Tex. Nov. 11, 1974) (film found obscene); Circle Cinema Inc., Town of Colonie, 82 Misc. 2d 527, 371, N.Y.S.2d 344(1975) (continued seizure procedure found unconstitutional); Commonwealth v MacDonald, 464 Pa. 435, 347 A.2d 290(1975) (criminal com plaint quashed for failure to meet Miller constitutional standards); State v. Auippa, 293 So. 2d 391(Fla. 1974) (on certification, state supreme court upheld constitutionality of state standards); Menefee v. City and County of Denver, 190 Colo. 163, 544 P.2d 382(1976) (conviction for possession and promotion of obscene film revised; statute was found unconstitutionally vague); People v. Tabron, 190 Colo. 149, 544 P.2d 372(1976) (Conviction for promoting obscenity reversed; statute was unconstitutional); Pussycat Theater v. State, 355 So. 2d 829(Fla. App. 1978) (found guilty of contempt of an order requiring legends "Revised Version" or "Edited Version" on film); Western Corp. v. Commonwealth; 558 S.W.2d 605(Ky. 1977) (convicted of exhibiting an obscene film); People v Thomas, 37 III. App. 3d 320, 346 N.E. 2d 190(1976) (conviction for exhibiting obscenity was reversed); People v. Mature Enterprises, Inc., 35 N.Y.2d 520, 323, ME 2d 704(1974) (convicted of distributing obscene material); Commonwealth v. 707 Main Corp., 371 Mass. 374, 357 N.E. 2d 753 (1976) (convicted of violating obscenity statute by exhibiting the film); People v. Mature Enterprises, Inc., 73 Misc. 2d 749, 343 N.Y.S.2d 911 (1971) (found guilty of promotion or possession with the intent to promote obscene material); People v. Mature Enterprises, Inc., 76 Misc. 2d 660, 352 N.Y.S. 2d 346(App. Div. 1974) (conviction for promoting obscene material affirmed); People v. Hausman, 82 Misc. 2d 1032, 372 N.Y.S.2d 503 (1975) (conviction for exhibiting obscene film reversed for failure to apply appropriate community standards); Smith v. State, 530 S.W. 2d 955(Crim. App. Tx. 1976) (conviction for exhibition of obscene materials was reversed on the basis there was insufficient evidence to establish a commercial purpose); State v. Runions, 654 S.W.2d 407(Tenn. App. 1983) (conviction for distributing obscene material).

  12. See, Butler v. Dexter, 425 U.S. 262(1975) (charges were never presented to grand jury); United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, 709 F.2d 132(2d Cir. 1983) (not patently offensive under contemporary standards in the New York area); United States v. Battista, 646 F2d 237(6th Cir. 1981) (convictions for conspiracy to violate obscenity statutes); United States v. Peraino, 645 F.2d 548(6th Cir. 1981) (found guilty of violating federal obscenity statute, convictions reversed on appeal); United States v. Cohen, 583 F.2d 1030(8th Cir. 1978) (convicted of mailing obscene materials); United States v. Marks, 585 F.2d 164(6th Cir. 1978) (convictions for transportation of obscene materials was reversed upon application of Bruton rule); United States v. Marks, 520 F.2d 913(6th Cir. 1975) (convictions for transporting obscene materials for sale and distribution); United States v. Pinkus 551 F.2d 1155(9th Cir. 1977) (convicted of eleven counts of mailing obscene materials); United States v. Defalco, 509 F. Supp 127 (S.D. Fla. 1981) (Motion to suppress was granted).

  13. See, Dexter v State, case number 223, 343, (Boxar Co. Tex. Nov. 11, 1974) (film found to be obscene); State v. Auippa, 298 So. 2d 391(Fla. 1974) (State obscenity statute upheld) Pussycat Theater v State, 355 So. 2d 829(Fla. App. 1978) (affirmed finding of contempt for failure to provide legends "Re vised Version" or "Edited Version" on films); Western Corp v. Commonwealth, 558 S.W.2d 605(Ky. 1977) (convictions for exhibiting an obscene film affirmed); People v. Mature Enterprises, Inc., 35 N.Y.2d 520, 323 N.E.2d 704(1974) (conviction for showing obscene film affirmed as modified-excessive fine imposed); State v. American Theater Corp., 194 Neb. 84, 230 N. W.2d (1975) (conviction for distribution of obscene material was affirmed); Commonwealth v. 707 Main Corp., 371 Mass. 374, 357 N.E.2d 753(1976) (conviction for exhibiting obscene films was affirmed); People v. Mature Enterprises, Inc., 76 Misc. 2d 660, 352 N.Y.S.2d 346(App. Div. 1974) (conviction for promoting obscene material affirmed); State v. Runions, 654 S.W.2d 407(Tenn. App. 1983) (conviction for distributing obscene materials was affirmed).

Cases

  1. Colbert v. State. No. 01-82-0943-CR, Slip Op., (Ct. of. App. Tex. Aug. 9, 1984) (The Devil in Miss Jones).

    Defendant was charged with selling an obscene video, "The Devil in Miss Jones." He pled not guilty. After a trial before a jury, he was found guilty, fined $2,000 and sentenced to 10 days confinement.

    On appeal, judgement of conviction was reversed. Two of the assignments of error were sustained:

    1. The trial court erred by charging the jury that a person who promotes obscene material or possesses the same with intent to promote it in the course of his business, is presumed to know the character and content of the material;
    2. The evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion.
  2. People v. P.J. Video, Inc. d/b/a/ Network Video and James Erhardt. No. 270, Slip. Op. (Ct. of App. N.Y. July 5, 1985) (Debbie Does Dallas)

    Defendants were charged with six counts of obscenity in the third degree based upon their possession of allegedly obscene video cassette movies. Defendants moved to suppress the seized films on the grounds that the warrant was not based upon probable cause. The Justice Court sustained the motion to suppress. The state took an appeal from the ruling. The appellate court affirmed the lower court decision.". . . the statements relied upon are conclusory and patently ambiguous. They may be interpreted as alleging that sexually explicit acts are pervasive in the two films described but they may also be interpreted in other, less inculpatory ways. That being so, the magistrate was required to require and clarify the affidavits' meaning and the record does not establish that he did so." Slip. Op. at 7.

  3. United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise. Schedule No. 2102, No. 81 Civ. 5295, Slip. Op. (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 4, 1981) (Deep Throat).

    United States sought forfeiture and condemnation of items of allegedly obscene materials. Found the materials were not patently offensive to the average person in that community. The complaint was dismissed.

  4. Hicks v. Miranda. 422 U.S. 332(1974) (Deep Throat).

    Four copies of the film "Deep Throat" were seized. The Superior Court declared the movie to be obscene and ordered all copies at the theater to be seized. (No appeal was taken from this judgement). Subsequent action brought to enjoin enforcement of the order. Court ordered the complaint should be dismissed.

  5. Butler v. Dexter. 425 U.S. 262(1975) (Deep Throat).

    Charged with commercial obscenity and use of a criminal instrument (16-mm movie projector). Felony complaints were lodged and bond was posted, but the charges were not presented to the grand jury. Supreme Court vacated and remanded.

  6. United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise. 709 F.2d 132(2d Cir. 1983) (Deep Throat) (Debbie Does Dallas).

    Southern District of New York court found items seized were not obscene. United States appealed. Appellate court affirmed the decision. "Having reviewed a representative sample of these works and in the absence of contrary evidence of prevailing community standards, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the articles on Schedule 2102 were not patently offensive under contemporary standards in the New York area." 709 F. 2d at 137.

  7. Young v. Abrams. 698 F.2d 131(2d Cir. 1983) (Deep Throat).

    Petition for habeus corpus from a conviction for obscenity in second degree. The district court found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellate court affirmed.

  8. United States v. Battista. 646 F.2d 237 (6th Cir. 1981) (Deep Throat).

    Conviction of conspiracy to violate the obscenity statutes, 18 U.S.C. S1462 and S1465 by transporting the obscene film Deep Throat in interstate commerce. Convictions were affirmed on appeal.

  9. United States v. Peraino. 645 F.2d 548 (6th Cir. 1981) (Deep Throat).

    Indicted in Western District of Tennessee for conspiracy to violate federal obscenity statute by transporting "Deep Throat" in interstate commerce. Found guilty and sentenced to eighteen months, twelve months suspended and a $10,000 fine. Raised issues of due process concerning lack of venue.

    Court held:

    One who has no connection with the district of venue at the time of the venue-setting act may not be convicted there for subsequently transporting the materials into other communities whose standards were not established. Merely joining the conspirators in their lawful distribution efforts in other communities after the film was no longer being shown in Memphis does not evidence intent to futher or advance the illegal purpose of the conspiracy to ship the film into Memphis. Absent any evidence of adherence to the criminal purposes of the conspiracy, defendants Joseph Peraino and Plymouth Distributors cannot be held to have become members of the conspiracy. 645 F.2d at 551.

    Convictions of Peraino and Plymouth Distributors were reversed and indictments dismissed.

  10. Universal Amusement Co. v Vance. 559 2d 1286(5th Cir. 1977).

    Application of Texas nuisance statute. The statute only restrains such expression as is not constitutionally protected and is not prohibited by state law.

  11. United States v Pinkus. 579 F.2d 1174(9th Cir. 1978) (comparison of Deep Throat and the Devil in Miss Jones to the named firm).

    On remand from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court reversed on two grounds: 1) holding the jury instructions improper insofar as they permitted children to be included in the community by whose standards obscenity was to be judged; 2) held improperly invoked the concurrent sentences doctrine in declining to address the court's rejection of the defendant's offers of sexually explicit films allegedly "comparable" to the charged film "No. 613" as evidence of community standards.

    Court stated:

    A defendant must meet a two-pronged test to establish that the proffered comparable materials are admissible as probative of community standards. First, there must be a reasonable resemblance between the proffered comparable and the allegedly obscene materials. Second, the proponent must establish a reasonable degree of community acceptance of the profferred comparables.

    * * *

    We held that the assertedly comparable films, "Deep Throat" and "The Devil in Miss Jones," satisfied the first prong of the Jacobs test because they bore resemblance to the film "No. 613." Id., we did not decide whether the second prong had been satisfied, but that is another question. 579 F.2d at 1175.

  12. United States v. Cohen. 583 F.2d 1030(8th. Cir. 1978).

    Defendants were charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. SS1461 and 1462 alleging the mailing, use of common carriers for the carriage in interstate commerce, from California to Iowa of obscene materials, and advertisements informing how obscene materials might be obtained. Convictions were affirmed.

  13. United States v Marks. 585 F. 2d 164(6th Cir. 1978).

    Convicted of two counts of transporting obscene materials in interstate commerce and one count of conspiracy to commit that offense. Court applied rule in Bruton v. United States and found statements made by the codefendant were inadmissible. Reversed and remanded on this issue. Court also stated with respect to the issue of first amendment protection for the films as not being obscene, "we observe that neither in this nor in the prior appeal have the appellants specifically pointed to any virtues of the films in question which might characterize them as other than classic examples of hard core pornography, nor did our view of the films reveal any."

  14. United States v. Battista. 646 F.2d 237(6th Cir. 1981) (Deep Throat).

    Convicted of conspiracy to violate obscenity statute, 18 U.S.C. S514 and S1465 by transporting the obscene film "Deep Throat" in interstate commerce.

    [Anthony Novello, Angelo Miragliotta and Mano DeSalvo were found not guilty; Louis Peraino was found guilty, sentenced to 3 years (30 months suspended) and $10,000 fine; Gerard Damison Film Production, Inc. fined $10,000; T. Anthony Arnone sentenced to 2 years (19 months suspended) and fined $3,000; Anthony Battista sentenced to 2 years (22 months suspended) and fined $2,000; Carl R. Carter, suspended sentence, 5 years probation and $1,500 fine; Mell Friedman sentended to 4 months, 1 year probation and $3,000 fine; Michael Cherubino, mistrial and charges were dismissed.] Convictions were affirmed.

  15. United States v. One Reel of Film. 481 F.2d 206(1st Cir. 1973) (Deep Throat).

    Forfeiture proceeding under 19 U.S.C. S1305(a) for the film "Deep Throat." Affirmed the order of forfeiture. The court found the film obscene stating:

    "We are thus left with a rarity: a film so single-minded as to fail even the older Roth-Memoirs test-unless one is tempted, as plainly a majority of the Supreme Court is not, to find redeeming social value in the explicit portrayal without more, of sexual congress itself." 481 F.2d at 209.

  16. United States v. Marks. 520 F. 2d 913 (6th Cir. 1975).

    Convicted of transporting obscene, lewd, lascivious and filthy films and film previews for the purpose of sale and distributions in interstate commerce and conspiracy to commit the act. Conviction affirmed.

  17. United States v Pinkus. 551 F.2d 1155(9th Cir. 1977).

    Convicted of eleven counts of mailing obscene material in violation of 18 U.S.C. S1461. Convictions were affirmed.

  18. United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise. 536 F. Supp 501 S.D.N.Y. 1981) (The Devil in Miss Jones, Deep Throat, Debbie Does Dallas).

    Action under 19 U.S.C. S1305(a) for forfeiture and condemnation of certain materials. Condemned as obscene: The Health Spa; Disco Lady; Cry for Cindy; Pizza Girl; Many, Many!; Finishing School; The Devil In Miss Jones; Swedish Erotica; Dr. Feel Good; excerpts from The Untamed; Deep Throat; The Devil In Miss Jones; The Defiance; Reflections; Teenage Madam; Devil's Playground; The Other Side of Julie; Cherry Truckers; China Lust; For Love of Money; The Possession; Pink Lips; Like Mother-Like Daughter, Lacey Bodine, Sheila's Payoff; All the Senator's Girls, Blackmail for Daddy, And Then Came Eve; The Blonde In Black Lace; Kowloon Connection; House of Kristina; Super Rod; Bedroom Athlete; What Kind of Girls Do You Think We Are; Taxi Girls; The Opening of Misty Beethoven; Honeysuckle Devine; Juke Joint; Guns of Novocaine, Superstar; Inside Jennifer Welles; Exploring Young Girls; AWOL; Never a 'lender Moment; Hot Nazis; Southern Belles, New York Babes; The Pony Girls; Seven Into Snowy; Pool of Pleasures; The Wish; Dream Goddess; The Anniversary; Suzie's Hot Reels; Women in Uniform; Flip Chicks; Teenage Deviate; Jail Bait; Barbara; Broadcast; and Debbie Does Dallas.

  19. United States v. Defalco. 509 F. Supp. 127(S.D. Fla. 1981) (Deep Throat).

    Heard motion to suppress. The court found "that the warrants gave the searching agents abundant authority, but insufficient guidance.... the warrants fail to meet the requirements of particularit." 509 F.Supp. at 135. Motions to suppress were granted.

  20. McKenzie v. Butler. 398 F. Supp 1319(W.D. Tex. 1975) (Deep Throat).

    Cites Dexter v. State, Case Number 223,343. (Boxar Co., Tex. Nov 11, 1974).

    The film "Deep Throat" was declared obscene.

    Exhibitors sought return of the seized copies of the film "Deep Throat." Court denied motion and dismissed the cause.

  21. Miranda v. Hicks. 338 F. Supp. 350(C.D. Cal. 1974).

    Declaratory relief as to the constitutionality of California obscenity statute. Court found: 1) the California obscenity statute as written does not meet the specificity test of Miller and 2) the California courts interpreting the statute may have liberalized it beyond its wording but have not specifically construed it so as to give fair notice as to what is constitutionally prohibited.

  22. Inland Empire Enterprises, Inc. v. Morton. 365 F.Supp. 1014 (C.D. Cal. 1973) (Deep Throat).

    Sought to enjoin any further searches and seizures involving the film "Deep Throat." Court stated, "Upon the doctrine of Federal abstention from invidious interference with state prosecutions for obscenity and upon the failure of Plaintiff to show any irreparable injury or violation of any consititutional or other rights, the complaint ... is hereby dismissed with prejudice." 365 F.Supp. at 1019.

  23. United States v. One Reel of Film. 360 F.Supp. 1067(D. Mass. 1973) (Deep Throat).

    Action for forfeiture of the film "Deep Throat" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S1305. Court entered an order for forfeiture. In reaching its judgment the court noted,

    Whatever claims may be made about Deep Throat, it was designed to have impact only through the sexual scenes. These dominate in tedious succession, and tend to arouse a prurient interest in sex.

    Thus, the court reaches the conclusion that the dominant theme of the film, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest in sex; that the film is patently offensive in that it affronts contemporary community standards with respect to description and representation of sexual matters; and that it is utterly without redeeming social value. It is therefore obscene and not protected by the Constitution. (360 F.Supp at 1073).

  24. Commonwealth v. Capri Enterprises, Inc. 365 Mass. 179, 310 N.E.2d 326(1974) (The Devil in Miss Jones).

    Indicted and found guilty of knowingly having in their possession for the purpose of exhibition, an "obscene, indecent and impure" motion picture film entitled "The Devil in Miss Jones." Each defendant was fined $5,000. The individual defendants were sentended to 2 years in jail.

    Conviction reversed. The court held, "Section 32, therefore, fails to meet the standard of specificity required by the Miller decision, and for the same reasons expressed in our decision in the Horton case, ante, we decline to reinterpret S32 to provide judicially the description of specific sexual conduct which must exist to satisfy the First Amendment requirements as now defined."

  25. Fairvilla Twin Cinema II v. State ex. rel. Eagan. 353 So.2d 909(Fla. App. 1977) (Deep Throat, The Devil in Miss Jones).

    Complaint issued seeking an injunction and temporary restraining order, alleging that three obscene films were being exhibited. "Deep Throat," "The Devil in Miss Jones," and "Gladys and Her All Girl Band." Court issued order restraining any further showing of the films. Court held, "It is necessary only that the sworn complaint describing the alleged obscenity personally observed by the affiant provide a sufficient basis upon which the judicial officer issuing the restraining order can make an independent determination that the material is obscene."

  26. State ex rel. Gerstein v. Walwick Theater Corp. 298 So.2d 406(Fla. 1974).

    Individual employee and corporation were indicted for exhibiting obscene material. The individual was found not guilty and the jury was unable to return a verdict as to the corporation. State then began legal proceedings to enjoin exhibition of the film. That court dismissed the injunction proceeding on grounds of due process and double jeopardy.

    Court held:

    The civil injunction provision is not unconstitutional on its face as denying due process or as violating double jeopardy principles. The State is not precluded from pursuing an alternative and cumulative remedy of injunction which was available even had there been no criminal proceeding or had the prior criminal proceeding resulted in a verdict of not guilty. Judgement was reversed with instructions to reinstate the complaint.

  27. Miller v. Robert Emmett Goodrich Corporation. 53 Mich. App. 267, 218 N.W.2d 771(1974) (The Devil in Miss Jones).

    Defendant-theater operator was enjoined from showing the film "The Devil in Miss Jones." The court concluded that "the injunction was improperly granted since there is no state law, either statutory or judicial, which specifically defines the definition of sexual conduct which the state may regulate." The judgement was reversed and the injunction vacated.

  28. State ex rel. Cahalan v. Diversified Theatrical Corporation. 59 Mich. App. 223, 229 N.W2d 389(1975) (The Devil in Miss Jones, Deep Throat).

    Action brought against defendant-motion picture theater operators alleging a public nuisance for exhibiting lewd motion pictures. The jury found the four films introduced, "The Devil in Miss Jones. "Deep Throat," "It Happened in Hollywood" and "Little Sisters" to be lewd. The order enjoining the showing of the four named films was affirmed.

  29. Kent City Prosecutor v. Robert Emmett Goodrich Corporation. 396 Mich. 253 240 N.W.2d 242(1976) (The Devil in Miss Jones).

    Issue was whether or not a civil obscenity statute could be used to prohibit the showing of the film "The Devil in Miss Jones." The court found that the civil obscenity statute was not directed to the exhibition of a film.

  30. State ex rel. Cahalan v Diversified Theatrical Corp. 396 Mich. 244, 240 N.W.2d 460(1976).

    Issue was whether a statute which provides that a place of lewdness, assignation or prostitution is a public nuisance can be applied to motion picture houses. The court found the statute did not apply to motion picture houses and did not reach the question of obscenity.

  31. People v. Llewellyn. 401 Mich. 314, 257 N.W. 2d 902(1977).

    Convicted of exhibiting two allegedly obscene films. The convictions were reversed on appeal on the basis that the city standard used for obscenity was invalid under the theory of state preemption. The question of whether the films were obscene under Miller was not addressed.

  32. State v. XLNT Corp. 536 S.W.2d 836(Mo. App. 1976) (The Devil in Miss Jones.)

    Conviction of possessing an obscene film. "The Devil in Miss Jones," with intent to circulate it. The conviction was affirmed. There was no question regarding the factual or legal determination that the "The Devil in Miss Jones" was obscene.

  33. State v Reggins. 645 S.W2d 113 (Mo. App. 1985) (The Devil in Miss Jones).

    Defendant was convicted of promotion of pornography in the second degree. He received a six-month suspended sentence and was placed on two years probation. The films were "The Devil in Miss Jones" and "Hot and Saucy Pizza Girls." The conviction was affirmed. There was no question raised on appeal as to the pornographic material of the film.

  34. City of Sioux Falls v. Mini-Kota Art Theaters, Inc.247 N.W. 2d.676(S.D. 1976) (The Devil in Miss Jones).

    Convicted of violating the Sioux Falls obscenity ordinance by showing the movie, "The Devil in Miss Jones." The defendant was fined three hundred dollars.

    Judgment was affirmed.

  35. Lazarus v Yorkview Theater Corp. 74 Misc. 2d 729, 345 N.Y.S.2d 413(1973).

    Action was brought to enjoin the defendants from the sale or distribution or further distribution or acquisition or possession within the State of New York of the film "The Devil in Miss Jones" and specifically to enjoin the exhibition of the film in Monroe County. The court denied the motion to dismiss and continued the preliminary injunction.

  36. Circle Cinema, Inc. v. Town of Colonie. 82 Misc. 2d 527, 371 N.Y.S. 2d 344(1975) (Deep Throat, The Devil in Miss Jones).

    Police seized six films, "Deep Throat," "The Devil in Miss Jones," Marriage Manual," "Climax," "Feel" and "Kitty's Pleasure Palace." The court found the continued seizure procedure did not meet constitutional standards.

  37. Vergari v. Pierre Productions Inc. 42. A.D. 950, 352 N.Y.S. 2d 34(1974) (The Devil in Miss Jones).

    State sought to enjoin defendants from exhibiting the film "The Devil in Miss Jones." The trial court found a preliminary injunction was not an available remedy under the statute. The appellate division reversed and granted the preliminary injunction. The defendant was also convicted of obscenity in the second degree.

  38. Commonwealth v. MacDonald. 464 Pa. 435, 347 A.2d 290(1975) (Deep Throat, The Devil in Miss Jones).

    Defendants were charged with exhibiting the films, "Deep Throat" and The Devil in Miss Jones." The trial court quashed the criminal complaint on the basis that the statute did not meet the constitutional standards of Miller. In affirming the trial court judgment, the court stated, "We therefore conclude that section 5903(a) fails to satisfy the Miller standard and therefore may not constitutionally be applied unless it is amended to specifically define the sexual conduct whose depiction or description is to be regulated thereby."

  39. State v Auippa. 298 So. 2d 391(Fla. 1974) (Deep Throat).

    Defendant was charged with distributing an obscene film, "Deep Throat" by exhibition. Trial court certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court. The court found:

    1. The definition of what material is obscene under Florida statutes was sufficient under the Miller standards;
    2. Florida Statute requires a standard of proof that the material is utterly without redeeming social value; and,
    3. Florida Statutes set forth what specifically defined conduct is prohibited.
  40. Roberts v. State. 373 So. 2d 672(Fla. 1979).

    Court ordered destruction of obscene materials after seizure. The court reversed on the grounds that no seizure had occurred within the meaning of the statute. The court did not reach the issue of obscenity.

  41. Menefee v. City and County of Denver. 190 Colo. 163, 544 P.2d 382 (1976) (Deep Throat).

    Menefee was found guilty of possession and promotion of obscene material, "Deep Throat." The convictions were reversed. The court found the Colorado statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

  42. People v. Tabron. 190 Colo. 149, 544 P.2d 372(1976).

    Defendant was found guilty of promoting obscenity. He was fined $1,000 and sentenced to a twelve month jail term. The convictions were reversed. The court found the statute was unconstitutional under the Miller standard.

  43. Pussycat Theater v. State. 355 So. 2d 829(Fla. App. 1978) (Deep Throat)

    Theater was found in contempt of an order requiring it to advertise "Deep Throat" with the legends "Revised version" or "Edited version." The finding of contempt was affirmed, but the fine was reduced from $3,000 to $500.

  44. Gayety Theaters, Inc. v. State ex. rel. Gerstein. 359 So. 2d 915(Fla. App. 1978) (Deep Throat).

    Theater was held in civil contempt for violating an order enjoining it from showing the film "Deep Throat." The court affimed the order as applied to the Theater, but reversed as it was applied to individual defendants not named in the original order.

  45. Western Corp. v. Commonwealth. 558 S.W. 2d 605(Ky. 1977) (Deep Throat).

    Western and two employees were charged with four counts of exhibiting an allegedly obscene film, "Deep Throat." The jury found Western guilty on all counts and it was fined $1,000 on each count. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to the charges against the two employees and the charges were dismissed. The conviction was affirmed. The court stated:

    The movie 'Deep Throat' was introduced in evidence and has been viewed by this court. It contains repeated scenes of actual sexual intercourse, anal sodomy, fellatio and cunnilingus. The story line consists entirely of the sexual activities of Miss Linda Lovelace. We failed to find any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value in this motion picture. We, therefore, agree with the jury's conclusion that this exhibited material was obscene and violative of contemporary community standards under the tests prescribed in Miller ....

  46. Mangum v. State's Attorney for Baltimore City. 275 Md. 450, 341 A.2d 786(1975) (Deep Throat).

    Theater was permanently enjoined from showing the film, "Deep Throat," by the Maryland State Board of Censors. The license was denied on the basis that the film was found to be obscene. The order was affirmed. The court noted,

    the trial judge as trier of the facts viewed the film "Deep Throat" and found that it was obscene under the Miller test. The court found that it was hard-core pornography and "was nothing more or less than a so-called 'stag' film...." On the basis of our viewing the film, it is clear that this is an accurate categorization.

    The film "Deep Throat" is for the most part a series of explicit depictions of sexual acts, including cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation, normal and anal intercourse, and group sex. Effort was obviously made by the film makers to concentrate on the actors' genitals during the scenes of sexual activity. Well over half of the length of the film was devoted to displaying these explicit sexual acts. The satirical scenes referred by some of petitioner's witnesses were brief and sophomoric, serving as little more than introductions to the scenes of explicit sexual activity.

    This case is the first case in which the question of hard-core pornography has been considered by this Court since the Miller definition was formulated by the Supreme Court. The film is clearly within the Miller definition of obscenity or hard-core pornography. In fact, "Deep Throat" would probably be deemed obscene under any meaningful definition of that term, including that set forth by the plurality opinion in Memoirs. It is noteworthy that in other jurisdictions where the matter has arisen, "Deep Throat" has consistently been found to be obscene.

  47. People v. Thomas. 37 I11. App. 3d 320, 346 N.E. 2d 190(1976) (Deep Throat).

    Defendant was convicted of obscenity violation for exhibiting, for public patronage, the film "Deep Throat." He was sentenced to sixty days in jail and fined $1,000. The conviction was reversed. The court stated that the elements of the offense in Illinois must include the requirement that the prosecution prove the subject material to be utterly without redeeming value.

  48. Peoplev. Mature Enterprises, Inc. 3 N.Y.S.2d 520, 323 N.E.2d 704(1974) (Deep Throat).

    Defendant was convicted of two counts of obscenity for showing the film, "Deep Throat." It was fined $100,000. The judgement was modified on the grounds of an excessive fine imposed. The defendant did not dispute the finding that the film was obscene within the meaning of the statute.

  49. State v. American Theater Corp. 194 Neb. 84, 230 N.W 2d 209(1975).

    Defendant was found guilty of distributing obscene material and was fined $500. The judgement was affirmed on appeal. After quoting from United States v. One Reel of Film, the court concluded, "We find that the film is hard-core pornography and is obscene under both the Roth-Memoirs test and the more recent and less stringent Miller test."

  50. Houston v. Hennessey. 534 S.W.2d 52(Mo. App. 1975) (Deep Throat).

    Petitioner, Houston, had been enjoined from exhibiting the film, "Deep Throat." The order was violated and he was held in contempt. The movie had been found to be obscene. The court quashed the writ of habeus corpus it had issued earlier.

  51. Commonwealth v. 707 Main Corp. 371 Mass. 374, 357 N. E.2d 753(1976) (Deep Throat).

    Defendant was found guilty of two counts of violating the obscenity statute by exhibiting the film, "Deep Throat." The judgment was affirmed. The defendant made no contention that the jury was not warranted in finding that the motion picture "Deep Throat" was obscene, "and the uncontroverted summary in the record as to the content of the motion picture confirms the correctness of this approach."

  52. Coleman v. Wilson. 123 N.J.Super. 310, 302 A.2d 555(1973).

    Prosecutor sought to enjoin the further showing of two films, "Deep Throat" and "Love for Sale." The court found the statute constitutional and found both films obscene. In reviewing the film, the court noted,

    "Deep Throat" is a one hour and five minute motion picture portraying a young woman whose clitoris is in her throat. Early in the film there is an extended exhibition of cunnilingus. This is soon followed by a scene of group sex between two women and a number of men showing explicit acts of intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus and sodomy.... The young woman consults a buffoon psychiatrist who diagnoses her amazing deformity and prescribes fellatio to achieve an orgasm. The balance of the film deals with the young woman serving as the doctor's assistant by engaging in sexual acts with him and his patients. Long detailed scenes of fellatio, cunnilingus and sodomy are repeatedly shown.

  53. State v. Spoke Committee University Center. 270 N.W.2d 339(N.D. 1978) (Deep Throat).

    Three-judge district court found the film, "Deep Throat" obscene and issued a statewide injunction prohibiting further showing of the film. The judgement was reversed on the basis of a defective search warrant and illegal seizure of the film.

  54. People v Mature Enterprises, Inc. 73 Misc. 2d 749, 343 N.Y.S.2d 911(1971) (Deep Throat).

    Defendant was found guilty of promotion, or possession with intent to promote, obscene material, knowing the contents and character of the material namely, "Deep Throat." In finding the defendant guilty, the court stated,

    The film runs 62 minutes. It is in color and in sound, and boasts a musical score. Following the first innocuous scene ("heroine" driving a car), the film runs from one act of explicit sex into another forthrightly demonstrating heterosexual intercourse and a variety of deviate sexual acts, not 'fragmentary and fleeting' as to be de minimus ... but here it permeates and engulfs the film from beginning to end.

  55. People v Mature Enterprises, Inc. 76 Misc. 2d 660, 352, N.Y.S.2d 346(App. Div. 1974) (Deep Throat).

    On appeal court found "Deep Throat" constitutionally obscene. Affirmed the conviction.

  56. People v. Hausman. 82 Misc. 2d 1032, 372 N.Y.S.2d 503(Cty. Ct. 1975) (Deep Throat).

    Defendant was found guilty of a violation of the obscenity statute by exhibiting the film, "Deep Throat." The conviction was reversed and a new trial was ordered on the grounds that the court needed to apply the appropriate community standards.

  57. Smith v. State, 530 S.W. 2d 955(Ct. Crim. App. Tx. 1976) (Deep Throat).

    Convicted of commercial exhibition of obscene material (Deep Throat). The judgement was reversed on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish a commercial purpose. The court noted,

    If the appellant had been charged with the possession of obscene material for the purpose of commercial exhibition, the evidence in the record might have supported a conviction for that offense.