## Facts

- In March 1978, the American Nazi Party planned a demonstration in Skokie, Illinois, a community with many Holocaust survivors.
- Irving David Rubin, a Jewish Defense League leader, held a Los Angeles press conference to protest the planned march and announce a counter-demonstration.
- Rubin displayed five $100 bills and publicly offered $500 “to any member of the community” who “kills, maims, or seriously injures” a member of the American Nazi Party, adding the reward would increase if “they bring us the ears,” and stating he was “deadly serious.”
- A complaint was filed; Rubin was held to answer; the prosecution filed an information charging solicitation of murder under California Penal Code § 653f.
- Rubin moved under Penal Code § 995 to set aside the information, arguing insufficient evidence of intent and that the statements were protected political speech under the First Amendment.
- The superior court found probable cause but set aside the information on First Amendment grounds, reasoning the statements sought media attention and lacked serious intent to solicit crime.
- The People appealed from the order setting aside the information.

## Issues

1. Whether the preliminary hearing evidence established probable cause of the specific intent required for solicitation of murder under Penal Code § 653f.
2. Whether a public, reward-based offer to induce violent crimes against identifiable targets is constitutionally protected advocacy, or unprotected criminal solicitation punishable consistent with the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order setting aside the information.
- The court held probable cause supported the solicitation charge because intent could be inferred from Rubin’s words and circumstances, and disputes about seriousness were for the trier of fact.
- The court held Rubin’s statements were criminal solicitation, not protected advocacy, and therefore were not shielded by the First Amendment.
- The prosecution was permitted to proceed on the reinstated solicitation-of-murder charge.

## Legal Principles

- On a Penal Code § 995 motion, the question is whether there is rational ground to assume an offense was committed and the defendant is guilty; the motion does not determine guilt or the evidence required for conviction.
- For solicitation under Penal Code § 653f, specific intent may be proven by reasonable inferences from the defendant’s words and the surrounding circumstances.
- The First Amendment may protect abstract advocacy of force or violence, but it does not protect speech that constitutes the substantive offense of solicitation—speech integral to criminal conduct.
- A public, compensated invitation conditioned on committing specified violent crimes against an identifiable person or group may be prosecuted as solicitation, even if framed in political terms.

## Conclusion

The court held that Rubin’s public cash “reward” offer to induce killing or serious injury of members of the American Nazi Party provided probable cause for solicitation of murder and fell outside First Amendment protection because it was a direct inducement of specific criminal acts rather than abstract political advocacy.


People v. Rubin, 96 Cal. App. 3d 968, 158 Cal. Rptr. 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)