If the exhibition charge is thrown out on these grounds, the distribution charge may also have to go, since the court can rule that the two laws are "non-separable": the court is unable to determine whether the legislature would have passed the second without the first.

But it is more likely that the court will uphold the law against distributing, while striking down the law against exhibiting, Balliro said.

If so, the verdict may be unsatisfactory to those who hold Baird's point of view. Because while Baird's exhibition of the pill may have been free speech, an exhibition in a pharmacy or department store is a more difficult case to justify. And the legislature might be able to reformulate the law so as to make it satisfactory to the court.

This is all speculation: the state supreme court will not hand down a ruling for at least a month, maybe two. If they rule in Baird's favor, it will be on the basis of privacy, free speech, or another of Balliro's arguments, that the statutes do not fall within the proper realm of legislation.

If they rule against Baird, they will have accepted the traditional arguments--that statutes against contraceptives inhibit illicit intercourse, and therefore properly aid the state in furthering morality in the Commonwealth. The arguments on that side are briefer: they make up a thirteen-page document by Assistant District Attorney Joseph A. Nolan.

There are plenty of copies. Just take the MBTA to the Government Center and ask the Messenger of the Court for one.