Facts of the Case
Criminal complaints were issued against three individuals charging them with disseminating obscenity in violation of an Ohio statute. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaints on the ground that the defendants had been subjected to selective and discriminatory prosecution in violation of the. The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to support the defendants’ allegations of selective and discriminatory prosecution and remanded for trial. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed. On certiorari, the Court dismissed the writ for want of jurisdiction.
“No. The Court issued a per curium opinion for the 5-4 majority in which it dismissed the previously granted writ of certiorari for a lack of jurisdiction. The Court noted that it normally reviews decisions that have received final judgment and that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio was not a final judgment since it returned the case to the lower court and allowed the petitioners to provide further evidence relating to their discriminatory prosecution claim. Although the Court can disregard the final judgment requirement in cases where the refusal to review a lower court’s decision “might seriously erode federal policy