Stanley v Georgia
394 US 557 (1969)
Notes of Supreme Court Conference of January 17, 1969 (Douglas)(Brennan)
WARREN: I would reverse on the lack of evidence to prove scienter.  There is no evidence that the petitioner even knew what was in the films.

BLACK:  Possession can't be made a crime in this field.  I would reverse.

DOUGLAS:  Reverses.

HARLAN:  I would reverse on possession.  States can't enact this kind of law.  A state can't make a crime out of what an individual draws or paints in his own room.

BRENNAN:  I would reverse on scienter.  I would be willing to go on possession, although I have trouble bringing possession into the First Amendment.

STEWART:  There is a Fourth Amendment violation at the threshold of this case that can support a reversal.  This is not contraband that they took.  The seizure was unlawful--they can't go open locked cases in that desk drawer.  I reverse.  I have difficulty on possession or scienter.  I think that there was circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove scienter.  Assuming that this is hard-core pornography, I would go on the Fourth Amendment.

WHITE:  I would reverse on both Fourth Amendment and scienter grounds.

FORTAS:  I reverse.  The possession issue is here.  My favorite ground is that a man can possess anything non-lethal, at least without proof that he is going to distribute or commercialize it.

MARSHALL:  I reverse.
Justices and their preferred grounds for decision, if specified in conference notes
Justice
 Vote to reverse
Possession protected
(privacy ground)
Scienter
(no proof knew was obscene)
Fourth Amendment
(Search not justified)
WARREN X
 **
 X
BLACK X
 X**

DOUGLAS X
 **

HARLAN X
 X**

BRENNAN X
X
 ++
STEWART X

X++
WHITE X
X
 X++
FORTAS X
 X**

MARSHALL X
 **

** Ultimately joined majority in resting reversal on privacy grounds
++ Ultimately joined concurring opinion, and supported reversal on strictly 4th Amendment grounds
(No justice, in final opinions, suggested reversal on scienter grounds.)