## Facts

- Samuel Roth operated an adult book-selling and mail-order business in New York.
- The United States prosecuted Roth in the Southern District of New York under 18 U.S.C. § 1461 for knowingly depositing for mailing materials alleged to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy.”
- The indictment charged 26 counts involving books, periodicals, photographs, and advertising circulars sent through the mail.
- At trial, three counts were dismissed; a jury found Roth guilty on four counts and not guilty on nineteen.
- Roth received a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine on one count, and concurrent five-year terms plus nominal fines on the remaining counts.
- On appeal, Roth challenged the statute’s constitutionality and asserted multiple trial errors, including claims about jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, vagueness, and entrapment.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1461, as applied to mailed “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy” matter, violates the First Amendment (as applied through the Fifth Amendment).
2. Whether the statutory terms governing obscenity and related concepts are so unclear as to be unconstitutional or to require reversal based on improper jury guidance.
3. Whether alleged trial errors—evidentiary rulings (including use of prior similar offenses), the government’s investigative methods, and related procedural rulings—required reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions.
- The court upheld the constitutionality of § 1461, relying on longstanding Supreme Court acceptance of federal obscenity restrictions and stating that a lower court should not overturn a statute repeatedly sustained.
- The court found the statutory terms sufficiently understandable for jurors to apply, given established judicial usage and common understanding.
- The court rejected entrapment and improper-investigation arguments, treating the government’s acquisition and presentation of the materials as permissible law enforcement practice.
- The court held that evidence of Roth’s prior similar offenses could be admitted for limited purposes (such as knowledge or intent) with proper limiting instructions.
- The court concluded the jury instructions, viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the governing law and did not mislead the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Under then-controlling doctrine, obscenity is not protected expression, and Congress may bar the mailing of obscene matter through § 1461.
- Terms such as “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy” are not unconstitutionally vague when they have an established judicial meaning and are applied through jury evaluation informed by prevailing community standards.
- Lower federal courts must follow binding Supreme Court precedent sustaining the validity of federal obscenity statutes, leaving any reconsideration of those precedents to the Supreme Court.
- Government acquisition of allegedly obscene materials through ordinary channels generally does not constitute entrapment absent improper inducement.
- Prior similar acts may be admissible to show knowledge or intent, provided the jury is instructed on the limited purpose of such evidence.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed Roth’s obscenity-mailing convictions, holding that § 1461 was constitutionally valid under existing precedent and that the trial court committed no reversible error in its instructions, evidentiary rulings, or handling of investigative-method and entrapment claims.


United States v. Roth, 237 F.2d 796 (2d Cir. 1956)