# Wood v. Georgia

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 4, 1981 · 450 U.S. 261

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9428214

## Case

- **Full name:** WOOD Et Al. v. GEORGIA
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 4, 1981
- **Citations:** 450 U.S. 261; 49 U.S.L.W. 4218; 101 S. Ct. 1097; 67 L. Ed. 2d 220; 1981 U.S. LEXIS 76
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Stewart
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, BuhgeR, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, Stewart, White
- **Cited by:** 1,010 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9428214

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a situation in which an owner of an adult theater and bookstore and his employees were represented by the same attorney, who was paid by the employer, and the employees were convicted of distributing obscene materials from the business, may have violated the emplo…
- holding that it was appropriate to consider a conflict issue not raised below because (1) defense counsel might be hesitant to raise it; (2) the government had to have been aware of the error; and (3) the record indicated that there might be such an issue
- finding that the "possibility of a conflict of interest was sufficiently apparent at the time of the revocation hearing to impose upon the court a duty to inquire further" (emphasis in original)
- stating that Supreme Court case law “mandates a re versal when the trial court has failed to make an inquiry even though it `knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists' "

## Opinion text

Justice Stewart,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In my view the Court is correct in remanding because of the “clear possibility of conflict of interest” shown on the record in this case. I would, however, go further and reverse the convictions themselves, which were for violations of an obscenity statute. I believe that that statute, Ga. Code § 26-2101 (1978), is facially unconstitutional.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9428214. Public record. Not legal advice.