Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 1/27/1896

Rosen v. United States

Citations

  • 161 U.S. 29
  • 16 S. Ct. 434
  • 40 L. Ed. 606
  • 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2135

Syllabus

<p>The constitutional right of a defendant to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him entitles him to insist, at the outset, by demurrer or by motion to quash, and, after verdict, by motion in arrest of judgment, that the indictment shall apprise him of the crime-charged with such reasonable certainty that he can make his defence and protect himself after judgment against another prosecutipn for the same offence; and this right is not infringed by the omission from the indictment of. indecent and obscene matter, alleged as not proper to be spread upon the records of the court, provided the crime charged, however general the language used, is yet so described as reasonably to inform the accused of the nature of the charge sought to be established against him; and, in such case, the accused may apply to the court before the trial is entered upon for a bill of particulars, showing what-parts of the paper would be relied- on by the prosecution as being ob-seen.e, lewd, and lascivious, which motion will be granted or refused, as-the court, in the exercise of a sound legal discretion, may find necessary to the ends of justice.</p> <p>The inquiry, in proceedings under Rev. Sta't. § 3893, is whether the paper charged to have been obscene, lewd, and- lascivious was in fact of that character, and if it whs of that character and was deposited in the mail by one who knew or had notice at the time of its contents, the offence is complete, although the defendant himself did not regard the paper as one that the statute forbade to be carried in the mails.</p> <p>Every one who uses the mails of the United States for carrying papers or publications must take notice of what, in this enlightened age, is meant by decency, purity, and chastity in social life, and what must be deemed obscene, lewd, and lascivious.</p> <p>When the evidence before the jury, if clear and uncontradicted upon any issue made by the parties, presents a question of law, the court can, wi

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with United States v. Rosen .

1896 United States Supreme Court case

Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29 (1896), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the concept of obscenity . In a decision written by Justice Harlan , the Court upheld the conviction of the defendant to 13 months hard labor and a fine of $1 for allegedly using the United States Postal Service to send material that was deemed "obscene , lewd and lascivious ".

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosen_v._United_States&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

It had been alleged that the defendant had, on April 24, 1893, within the Southern District of New York :

unlawfully, willfully , and knowingly deposit and cause to be deposited in the post office of the City of New York , for mailing and delivery by the post office establishment of the United States , a certain obscene, lewd, and lascivious paper, which said paper then and there, on the first page thereof, was entitled 'Tenderloin Number, Broadway,' and on the same page were printed the words and figures following, that is to say: 'Volume II, number 27; trademark, 1892; by Lew Rosen ; New York , Saturday, April 15, 1893; ten cents a copy, $4.00 a year in advance,' and thereupon, on the same page, is the picture of a cab , horse, driver, and the figure of a female, together (underneath the said picture) with the word 'Tenderloineuse,' and the said paper consists of twelve pages, minute description of which, with the pictures therein and thereon would be offensive to the court and improper to spread upon the records of the court because of their obscene, lewd, and indecent matters, and the said paper, on the said twenty-fourth day of April, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three , was enclosed in a wrapper, and addressed as follows, that is to say: 'Mr. Geo. Edwards, P.O. Box 510, Summit, N.J. ' -- against the peace of the United States and their dignity , and contrary to the statute of the United States in such case made and provided.[1]

The defendant, Lew Rosen, had been found guilty and appealed his conviction, arguing that the material the grand jury had found to be obscene had not been specifically identified on the record.

Opinion of the Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosen_v._United_States&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")
]

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Writing for the Court, Justice Harlan found that because the paper in question had been admitted into evidence and the defendant had not objected, and because he could have requested a bill of particulars that described the paper but chose not to, the indictment sufficiently informed the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[2]

Justices White and Shiras dissented.

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosen_v._United_States&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. ↑ 161 U. S. 32, 33.
  2. ↑ 161 U. S. 34-41.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosen_v._United_States&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")
]

show

U.S. Supreme Court Freedom of Speech Clause case law

**First Amendment to the United States Constitution **

Unprotected speech

Strict scrutiny

Overbreadth and
Vagueness doctrines

Symbolic speech

versus conduct

Content-based
restrictions

Content-neutral
restrictions

Compelled speech

…

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

Judges: Harlan, White, Shiras

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.