Editing Miller v. California (section)

==Background==
In 1971, Marvin Miller, owner of a California mail-order business specializing in [[Pornography|pornographic]] films and books, [[Advertising mail|mass-mailed]] a brochure advertising products that graphically depicted sexual activity between men and women. Five of the brochures were mailed to a restaurant in [[Newport Beach, California|Newport Beach]], [[California]]. The owner and his mother opened the envelope and, upon seeing the brochures, called the police.<ref>John Henry Merryman, Albert Edward Elsen, Stephen K. Urice, Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts, (Frederick, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2007) 687</ref>

Miller was arrested and charged with violating California Penal Code 311.2(a) which says in part: "Every person who knowingly sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, [...] any obscene matter is for a first offense, guilty of a [[misdemeanor]]."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/311.2.html |title=California Penal Code Section 311.2 – California Attorney Resources – California Laws |publisher=Law.onecle.com |date=February 22, 2013 |access-date=April 3, 2013}}</ref> California lawmakers wrote the statute based on two previous Supreme Court obscenity rulings:<ref name=":1">{{Bluebook journal | first=Beverly G.| last=Miller | title=Miller v. California: A Cold Shower for the First Amendment | volume=48 | journal=St. John's L. Rev. | page=568 | pin= | url=https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol48/iss3/10 | year=1974}}</ref> ''[[Memoirs v. Massachusetts]]''<ref name="Memoirs">''Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Mass.'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10189557359995044131&q=Memoirs+v.+Massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 383 U.S. 413] (S.Ct., 1966).</ref> and ''[[Roth v. United States]]''.<ref name="Roth">''Roth v. United States'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14778925784015245625&q=+354+U.S.+476&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 354 U.S. 476] (S. Ct., 1957).</ref>

Miller was tried by jury at the [[Superior Courts of California|Superior Court of Orange County]]. The judge instructed the jury to evaluate the evidence by the [[community standards]] of California as defined by the statute.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Censorship/3-prong-test.html |title=Three Prong Obscenity Test |publisher=Courses.cs.vt.edu |access-date=April 3, 2013}}</ref> The jury returned a guilty verdict.<ref name=":0" />

Miller appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, arguing that the jury instructions did not use the standard set in ''Memoirs v. Massachusetts'' which said that in order to be judged obscene, materials must be "utterly without redeeming social value."<ref name=Memoirs/> The appellate division rejected this argument and upheld the jury verdict. Miller then filed an appeal with the [[California Courts of Appeal|California Court of Appeal for the Third District]], which declined to review the lower court rulings.<ref name=":0" /> 

Adopting a [[freedom of speech]] argument, Miller applied to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] for ''[[certiorari]]'', which was granted. The first oral arguments were heard in January 1972.<ref name=":0" />