Jenkins v. Georgia
418 U.S. 153 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury's determination that a work is obscene is not absolute and is subject to independent appellate review to ensure the material depicts or describes patently offensive 'hard core' sexual conduct as required by the First Amendment. Nudity alone, without the lewd exhibition of genitals or depiction of ultimate sexual acts, is insufficient to render material obscene.
Facts:
- Jenkins was the manager of a movie theater in Albany, Georgia.
- On January 13, 1972, the theater under Jenkins' management exhibited the film 'Carnal Knowledge'.
- The film is a story about two college friends and their evolving sex lives and relationships over several years.
- The film includes scenes with nudity and scenes where sexual conduct is understood to be occurring off-camera or without explicit focus.
- At no point does the film show an exhibition of the actors' genitals or graphically depict ultimate sexual acts.
- The film was critically acclaimed, appearing on several 'Ten Best' lists for 1971.
Procedural Posture:
- Jenkins was charged in the Superior Court of Dougherty County, Georgia, with the offense of distributing obscene material.
- A jury, after viewing the film 'Carnal Knowledge,' returned a general verdict of guilty.
- The trial court convicted Jenkins, fined him $750, and sentenced him to 12 months' probation.
- Jenkins (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia (appellee is the State of Georgia), in a divided decision, affirmed the conviction.
- Jenkins then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exhibition of the film 'Carnal Knowledge,' which contains nudity and themes of sexuality but does not explicitly depict sexual acts, constitute the distribution of obscene material unprotected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The film 'Carnal Knowledge' is not obscene under the constitutional standards announced in Miller v. California, and its exhibition is therefore protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. While juries may apply contemporary community standards to questions of fact regarding prurient interest and patent offensiveness, appellate courts retain the ultimate power to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims. Under Miller, material is not obscene unless it depicts or describes 'patently offensive “hard core” sexual conduct,' such as representations of ultimate sexual acts or lewd exhibition of the genitals. The Court's own viewing of 'Carnal Knowledge' revealed that while its subject matter is sex, it does not depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; nudity alone is not sufficient to make material legally obscene.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. While concurring in the judgment to reverse Jenkins' conviction, this case demonstrates the failure of the Miller v. California test to solve the 'intractable obscenity problem.' The majority's need to independently screen the film and make its own determination of patent offensiveness confirms that the Miller standard still requires the Supreme Court to engage in case-by-case factual review, leaving the law uncertain and chilling protected expression. A better standard would be to prohibit the government from suppressing any sexually oriented materials for consenting adults, as the current approach forces the Court to be the ultimate arbiter of obscenity, a task for which it is ill-suited and which creates institutional stress.
Analysis:
This case serves as a crucial, early application and clarification of the obscenity test established in Miller v. California. By overturning a jury's verdict, the Supreme Court strongly affirmed the principle of independent appellate review in obscenity cases, establishing that a jury's application of 'community standards' is not unassailable. The decision signals a constitutional limit on what can be deemed 'patently offensive,' preventing local juries from suppressing nationally-distributed films that lack 'hard core' sexual content. It provides a significant practical example of what does not meet the Miller standard for obscenity, thereby offering guidance to lower courts and creating a federal backstop against overly broad local interpretations of obscenity laws.
Unlock the full brief for Jenkins v. Georgia