text:
    No. 72-6919.
    Smith v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall concur,

dissenting.

After petitioner and one Edward Johnson forcefully entered a St. Louis apartment occupied by Mrs. Hermine Rohs, her son Willy Rohs, and his wife Marilyn Rohs, robbed them, raped both women, and finally stabbed all three to death, petitioner was indicted on three separate charges of murder in the first degree. The State proceeded first with the trial of petitioner for the murder of Marilyn Rohs, seeking the death penalty. The jury convicted petitioner of first-degree murder, but assessed punishment at life imprisonment. Subsequently, the State tried petitioner for the murder of Willy Rohs, again seeking the death penalty. Again the jury found petitioner guilty of first-degree murder and assessed life imprisonment. The trial judge specified that the second life sentence would run consecutively to the first and the State thereupon entered a plea of nolle prosequi on the third indictment. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed both convictions, rejecting petitioner’s claim that the second prosecution violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. See 491 S. W. 2d 257 (1973).

Although both charges of murder clearly arose out of the same transaction or episode, they were prosecuted by the State in separate proceedings. That, in my opinion, requires that we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse, for I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), requires the prosecution, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, “to join at one trial all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode or transaction.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring); see Miller v. Oregon, 405 U. S. 1047 (1972) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55, 57 (1971) (statement of Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall, JJ.); Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387, 395 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring).

      Edward Johnson, who was also indicted, tried, and convicted for first-degree murder, has not petitioned this Court to review his conviction.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 73-25.
    Hammons Products Co. v. Agrashell, Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-369.
    Firch Baking Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-254.
    Dorl v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-379.
    Sullivan et al. v. Houston Independent School District et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5437.
    Chandler et al. v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 73-339.
    Employee-Officer John v. Johnson.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-442.
    New York v. Fitzpatrick.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6535.
    No. 72-6538.
    No. 72-6737.
    No. 72-6787.
    No. 72-6837.
    No. 72-6905.
    No. 72-6939.
    No. 73-2.
    No. 73-135.
    Rodriguez v. United States, Arias v. United States, Rodrigues v. United States, Weathers v. Gaffney, Warden, Joseph v. Henderson, Warden, Reid v. Wisconsin, Johnston v. United States, Kaehni et al. v. Diffraction Co., King Nut Co. v. Beer Nuts, Inc.,
   ante, p. 864;

ante, p. 864;

ante, p. 841;

ante, p. 872;

ante, p. 846;

ante, p. 880;

ante, p. 850;

ante, p. 854; and

ante, p. 858. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-1271.
    Brumbaugh v. United States,
   412 U. S. 918. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-5462.
    Lee v. Texas,
   409 U. S. 1046. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

Assignment Orders

An order of The Chief Justice designating and assigning Mr. Justice Clark (retired) to perform, judicial duties in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit during the week of November 26, 1973, and for such additional time as may be required to complete unfinished business, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 294 (a), is ordered entered on the minutes of this Court, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 295.

An order of The Chief Justice designating and assigning Mr. Justice Clark (retired) to perform judicial duties in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York during the month of December 1973, and for such additional time as may be required to complete unfinished business, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 294 (a), is ordered entered on the minutes of this Court, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 295.

An order of The Chief Justice designating and assigning Mr. Justice Clark (retired) to- perform judicial duties in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit during the period April 15, 1974, to April 19, 1974, and for such additional time as may be required to complete unfinished business, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 294 (a), is ordered entered on the minutes of this Court, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 295.


text:
    November 19, 1973
    No. 73-415.
    No. 73-416.
    Titus v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al.; and Brown v. Supreme Court of Virginia et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. E. D. Va.

Mr. Justice White would note probable jurisdiction and set cases for oral argument.

Reported below: 359 F. Supp. 549.


text:
    No. 73-426.
    Danforth, Attorney General of Missouri v. Rodgers et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. Mo.


text:
    No. 73-382.
    No. 73-383.
    Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. Environmental Improvement Commission et al.; and American Oil Co. et al. v. Environmental Improvement Commission et al.
   Appeals from Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Mr. Justice Stewart would dismiss appeals for want of properly presented federal question.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these appeals.

Reported below: 307 A. 2d 1.


text:
    No. 73-404.
    Dependent School District No. D-20 of Caddo County et al. v. Parker, County Superintendent of Schools.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Okla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-5391.
    Wood v. Virginia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-5314.
    Mitchell v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board of California et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Motion of California Applicant’s Attorneys Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 73-399.
    No. 73-420.
    Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. et al. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) et al.; and United States et al. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) et al.
   Appeals from D. C. D. C. Judgment vacated and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Wichita Board of Trade, 412 U. S. 800 (1973).

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these appeals.


text:
    No. 72-6681.
    Elder v. Casey et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and cer-tiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee for reconsideration in light of suggestion contained in the Solicitor General's memorandum filed October 26, 1973.

Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. A-486.
    Environmental Defense Fund et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority et al.
   D. C. E. D. Tenn. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.


text:
    No. A--425 (73-5481).
    Sayles v. McGuire, U. S. District Judge.
   D. C. D. C. Application for injunction presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-19.
    In re Disbarment of McWhinney.
   It is ordered that Robert R. McWhinney, of Greensburg, Pennsylvania, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-20.
    In re Disbarment or Levin.
   It is ordered that Robert Bernard Levin, of New York City, New York, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-21.
    In re Disbarment of Liddy.
   It is ordered that George Gordon Liddy, of Oxon Hill, Maryland, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 73-187.
    Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 818.] Motion of SCM Corp. for access to totality of appendix denied.


text:
    No. 73-275.
    No. 73-335.
    No. 73-340.
    No. 73-341.
    No. 73-342.
    Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. et al. v. Louisiana; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Louisiana; Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Louisiana; Texas Pacipic-Missouri Pacific Terminal Railroad of New Orleans v. Louisiana; and Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. v. Louisiana.
   Order of this Court entered November 5, 1973, dismissing appeals for want of substantial federal question is amended by deleting sentence which reads "Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of No. 73-275” and substituting in lieu thereof "Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these appeals."


text:
    No. 73-431.
    Broccolino, Judge v. Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities et al.
   Ct. App. Md. Motion to dispense with printing petition denied with leave to file a printed petition in conformity with Rule 39 of the Rules of this Court on or before December 19, 1973.


text:
    No. 73-5192.
    Mayer v. Moeykens.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 73-232.
    Exxon Corp. v. Preston.
   Appeal from Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 9th Sup. Jud. Dist. Probable jurisdiction noted.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this, matter.


text:
    No. 73-235.
    DeFunis et al. v. Odegaard et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wash, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-434.
    No. 73-435.
    No. 73-436.
    Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al.; Allen Park Public Schools et al. v. Bradley et al.; and Grosse Pointe Public School System v. Bradley et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted. Cases consolidated and a total of one and one half hours allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 484 F. 2d 215.


text:
    No. 73-326.
    Byrd v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-334.
    Matanky v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-366.
    Wolcoff et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-389.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-390.
    Shapiro et al. v. Barrett, County Clerk of Cook County, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-391.
    Behring Properties, Inc., et al. v. Sun Oil Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-395.
    Yuen Sang Low et al. v. Attorney General of the United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-397.
    Brand Plastics Co. et al. v. Dow Chemical Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-400.
    Rexach et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-408.
    Santos et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-409.
    Gordon et al., Co-Administrators v. Lightenburger et al.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-410.
    No. 73-577.
    Soo Line Railroad Co. v. Fulton, dba R. H. Fulton, Contractor; and Fulton, dba R. H. Fulton, Contractor v. Soo Line Railroad Co. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: 481 F. 2d 326.


text:
    No. 73-412.
    Iannelli et ux. v. Long, District Director of Internal Revenue, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-417.
    Hakim v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., real party in interest).
   Ct. App. Cal.,' 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-418.
    Hutul v. Chicago Bar Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-419.
    Brigandi et al. v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-423.
    Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Edsall.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-424.
    Russell v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Company of Chicago.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-429.
    White v. Harrington Manufacturing Co., Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5114.
    Trusdell v. Aluli et al.
   Sup. Ct. Hawaii. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5152.
    Scandrett v. Turner, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5181.
    Williams v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5232.
    Thomas v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5251.
    Bryden v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5299.
    England v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5315.
    Newland v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5322.
    Bamberger et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5323.
    Miller v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5325.
    Eley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5342.
    Mays v. Warner, Secretary of the Navy.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5346.
    Maberry v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5349.
    Russo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5355.
    Ellsworth v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5368.
    Locklear v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5369.
    Bittorie, Administratrix v. Potomac Edison Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5371.
    Niemszyk v. Maine.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5385.
    Kaczynski v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5386.
    Woodell v. Plowfield, Sheriff.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5387.
    Fletcher v. Shultz, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5389.
    Cole v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5401.
    Small v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5408.
    Dockery et al. v. Boyle.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5410.
    Jackson v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5418.
    Schrader v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5421.
    Lewis v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuya-hoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5425.
    Humphrey v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5426.
    O’Reilly v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5432.
    Carlton v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5436.
    Kearns v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5442.
    Hull v. St. Elizabeths Hospital et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5448.
    Aldridge v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5452.
    Steffes v. Cupp, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5454.
    Zerbo et al. v. Michigan Department of the Treasury, Revenue Division.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5460.
    Rudman v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1680.
    Housing Authority of New Haven et al. v. Dorsey, Commissioner, Department of Community Affairs of Connecticut, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Motion of Connecticut State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6800.
    Goad v. Anderson, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6883.
    Morrison v. Hamilton County Board of Education.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-403.
    Paul A. Richter & Associates, Inc., dba Body Shop v. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, et al., real parties in interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5160.
    Mueller v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5396.
    Iverson v. North Dakota.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5407.
    Paschall v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio,

Summit County. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5416.
    Austin v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5435.
    DeJarnette v. Ford, Governor of Kentucky, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-116.
    Rocks v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 73-205.
    Floyd et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of Oklahoma Lawyers Guild for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-345.
    Casey, aka Ward v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to defer consideration and petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-394.
    Morgan v. Automobile Manufacturers Assn., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari. Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 73-402.
    Rose Ann Coates Trust et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-427.
    Berni et al. v. Leonard, Executive Directrix, Nassau County Civil Service Commission, et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 73-5256.
    Lee v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Marshall concurs,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a)(1); he later pleaded guilty to a third count. After petitioner’s plea on the third count, the District Court sentenced him to concurrent 15-year terms on the three counts, recommending that he be given drug addiction treatment at the Federal Youth Center at Ashland, Kentucky. It refused, however, to sentence petitioner under the provisions of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 (hereafter NARA), 18 U. S. C. § 4251 et seq. Petitioner claims that in the circumstances of this case the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to sentence him under the NARA.

The three charges against petitioner grew out of three transactions in which he acted as a middleman, purchasing heroin from two different wholesalers for a federal agent. Petitioner received only a total of $15 from the three sales, which was used to buy heroin for his own personal use. Petitioner also retained some of the drug he had purchased for his own personal use.

The District Court refused to sentence petitioner under the NARA with the possibility of early release to the community because he had “sold” heroin, and was not just a user.

Under 18 U. S. C. § 4251, individuals are generally not “eligible” for NARA sentencing if they have sold narcotics; Congress, however, created an express exception for those who sold primarily to support their own addiction. Section 4252, on which the Court of Appeals relied in affirming the District Court, provides that if a court believes an eligible offender to be an addict, it “may” place him in the custody of the Attorney General to determine whether he is an addict likely to be rehabilitated through treatment. Section 4253 provides that if a court, after this study, finds that an offender is an addict and is likely to be rehabilitated, it “shall” sentence him under the NARA, with exceptions not here relevant.

An individual sentenced under the NARA could be released after six months upon a report from the Attorney General and certification from the Surgeon General that he has made sufficient progress to warrant his release under supervision; he can also be held up to 10 years if such progress is not made. 18 U. S. C. §§ 4254, 4253. After release, § 4255 provides for a program of aftercare in the community. This aftercare, consisting of psychiatric, medical, and vocational support, was considered the crucial contribution of the NARA to drug-addiction treatment. It is recognized that without such ongoing aftercare, the overwhelming majority of addicts return to their habits shortly after release from prison or voluntary drug-addiction programs.

Section 4252 undoubtedly preserves the discretion of the sentencing judge to refuse to apply the provisions of the NARA even to addicts who are “eligible” under § 4251; the provisions of the NARA are available as an alternative and are not mandatory. See H. R. Rep. No. 1486, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 8-9, 13.

Nonetheless, it seems that Congress contemplated a more enlightened and less rigid approach to narcotics than was employed by the trial judge in the instant case.

The NARA was the product of extended consideration by the Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Health, Education, and Welfare, which stressed the necessity for flexibility in dealing with the problem of drug addiction:

“These procedures mark a fundamental reorientation toward the problem of addiction. The Attorney General in his testimony before the subcommittee stated that for too long the law had stressed punitive solutions and neglected medical and rehabilitative measures. . . .
“. . . [T]he bill provides alternatives which provide a needed flexibility in the law. The practical effect of the implementation of the law provided for in the bill, is that strict punishment can be meted out where required to the hardened criminal, while justice can be tempered with judgment and fairness in those cases where it is to the best interest of society and the individual that such a course be followed.
“. . . The testimony presented at the hearings has clearly shown the need for the flexible approaches provided by civil commitment and postconviction commitment which would be made possible by this legislation.” Id., at 8-9.

Congress recognized that institutional treatment such as petitioner might receive in this case was ineffective, without more, in curing drug addiction, and that individuals will generally return to addiction when released from prison even if their physiological habits have been broken. It also explicitly acknowledged that addicts, like petitioner, will engage in criminal activity to support their habits and that they will often spread addiction to others. Id., at 11; S. Rep. No. 1667, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 13. Weighing these considerations, Congress determined that even those who sold drugs, if they did so primarily to support their own habits, should be eligible for NARA consideration. The exception for addicts who sold to support their own habits was not created casually or without consideration. Civil Commitment and Treatment of Narcotic Addicts, Hearings before Subcommittee No. 2 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess., ser. 10, pp. 84-85 (statement of Attorney General Katzen-bach). It was felt that the exception did not endanger public safety or allow the NARA to be abused; See Hearings on the Narcotic [Addict] Rehabilitation Act of 1966 before a Special Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 18 (1966) (statement of Attorney General Katzenbach).

The District Court Judge in this case effectively wrote this congressional determination out of the NARA, since he apparently refused to extend the benefits of the Act to petitioner because petitioner had “sold” drugs. This was the ineffective and inflexible treatment into which judges were forced before the passage of the NARA and which Congress attempted to cure; it does not seem consonant with the congressional purpose to continue such simplistic treatment of the problem of addiction after the NARA is available. I would grant certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case for fuller consideration of the advisability of treatment under the NARA.

       Pet. for Cert. 11; Memorandum for United States in Opposition 3 n. 1. Similarly, the Solicitor General argues that discretion was properly exercised because petitioner was an “active conduit” of drugs who knew many drug wholesalers. Id,., at 3.

       H. R. Rep. No. 1486, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 12-13, 14; Hearings on the Narcotic [Addict] Rehabilitation Act of 1966 before a Special Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 19 (1966) (statement of Attorney General Katzenbach).

       “Under our present laws we confront the addict almost solely as a criminal, and though we can effectively remove a relatively few addicts from the streets where they are public menaces, we can do very little to prevent them from returning to society with the cause of their addiction unsolved.
      “Physiologically, even a long-term heroin addict can be cured of his physical craving in a relatively short time. His body no longer requires the drug. But obviously, his underlying emotional problems and the more immediate factors like environment and unemployment are as pressing as they ever were.
      “Clearly, neither voluntary commitment nor criminal imprisonment are working. Civil commitment of addicts accompanied by a program, of aftercare in the community gives us a way out of the dilemma.” Id., at 16-17 (statement of Attorney General Katzen-bach) ; see id., at 36 (statements of Attorney General Katzenbach and Myrl Alexander, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons).


author: Mr. Justice White,

text:
    No. 73-5370.
    Fitzpatrick v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,

dissenting.

Petitioner Martin Fitzpatrick was convicted for the first-degree murder of two police officers in Sherrill, New York. The police followed reliable leads and located a house owned by Fitzpatrick in Syracuse. After attempting to get a response from inside, the police entered the house through a door which had been left ajar. As they came to a room on the second floor, petitioner called out from a closet in which he was hiding: “Don’t shoot. I give up.” The officers seized and handcuffed him, and took him out into the hall. The police then questioned Fitzpatrick about the gun he had used, after advising him of his rights. He stated that it was in the closet where he had been found. The gun was retrieved from the closet and it was subsequently identified as the murder weapon at trial.

At a suppression hearing, the trial judge determined that petitioner had not been sufficiently apprised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and ruled his oral statements to the police inadmissible. The trial court nevertheless admitted the gun into evidence, rejecting petitioner’s contention that it be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963). The trial court adopted what has been termed the rule of “inevitable discovery,” stating “proper police investigation would [in any event] have resulted in a search of that closet and [the gun’s] discovery.” The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the search was not inconsistent with Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), and also adopted the inevitable-discovery rule.

Chimel held that a warrantless search of premises incident to arrest was justified when limited to “a search of the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ — construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Id., at 763. This limitation lends substance to petitioner’s claim that this search of a closet in a room while an arrestee is handcuffed in a hall in the presence of police cannot be justified. At the very least, a substantial issue of compliance with Chimel is posed and is deserving of this Court’s attention.

Of equal importance is the adoption by the New York Court of Appeals of the inevitable-discovery rule. The rejection of that rule by the Second Circuit, United States v. Paroutian, 299 F. 2d 486 (1962), where evidence was discovered as the “fruit” of an illegal search, may pose a dilemma for law enforcement officials in the State of New York. Moreover, if the fruits doctrine applies to exclude evidence obtained as a result of statements made after improper Miranda warnings, compare Miranda, supra, at 476-477, with Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971), it is a significant constitutional question whether the “independent source” exception to inadmissibility of fruits, Wong Sun, supra, at 487-488, encompasses a hypothetical as well as an actual independent source.

Because in important respects the decision is arguably at odds with decisions of this Court, I would grant the petition for certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6213.
    Hunter v. General Motors Corp. et al.,
   411 U. S. 973. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 72-1564.
    No. 72-1670.
    No. 72-1712.
    No. 72-6745.
    No. 72-6757.
    No. 72-6762.
    No. 72-6942.
    No. 72-6969.
    No. 72-6973.
    No. 73-229.
    No. 73-5058.
    No. 73-5119.
    No. 73-5175.
    Bernabei v. United States, Texad, Inc. (Texad Specialty Co.) v. Parish of St. Mary Sales and Use Tax Dept., In re Horowitz, Arnold v. Kirby et al., Dun Leavay v. Hallahan et al., Smilgus v. Bergman et al., Dun Leavay v. Lutz Appellate Printers, Inc., Mendes v. REA Express, Inc., Soots et ux. v. Conner, Safir v. Blackwell, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Maritime Affairs, et al., Beasley v. United States, Farmer et vir v. Toledo Edison Co., Tuberville v. Texaco Inc. et al.,
   ante, p. 825;

ante, p. 803;

ante, p. 867;

ante, p. 872;

ante, p. 805;

ante, p. 842;

ante, p. 850;

ante, p. 852;

ante, p. 852;

ante, p. 975;

ante, p. 924;

ante, p. 876; and

ante, p. 925. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-1448.
    Howell v. Jones, Sheriff,
   ante, p. 803. Petition for rehearing and other relief denied.


text:
    November 21, 1973
    No. A-435.
    Life of the Land et al. v. Brinegar, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of the State of Hawaii and of Kalihi-Palama Community Council et al. to vacate stay and injunction entered by Mr. Justice Douglas on November 7, 1973, granted.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

This case involves the sufficiency and objectivity of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared in connection with the construction of the Reef Runway Project at Honolulu International Airport. The project is a 12,000-foot runway to be built offshore on filled reef-land in the Keehi Lagoon. The construction will involve the dredging of some 14 million cubic yards of coral and silt, consuming over 1,200 acres of ocean coral reef. The EIS, required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, was prepared in this case as a “joint project” by the Federal Aviation Agency, the State of Hawaii, and the Ralph M. Parsons Company. The problem, as the Court of Appeals noted, is that Parsons is a private firm under contract to render management consulting services for the project in the event it is approved and thus has a strong “financial interest in an affirmative decision on the proposed project.” 485 F. 2d 460, 467 (CA9 1973). The court, however, found nothing “in either the wording of NEPA or the case law which indicates that, as a matter of law, a firm with a financial interest in the project may not assist with the drafting of the EIS.” Ibid.

It seems to me a total frustration of the entire purpose of NEPA to entrust evaluation of the environmental factors to a firm with a multimillion-dollar stake in the approval of this project. NEPA embodies the belated national recognition that we have been “brought to the brink” by myopic pursuit of technological progress and by a decisionmaking mechanism resting largely on the advice of vested-interest groups. A longstanding policy of listening only to those with enough money to be heard has left our country scarred with a continuum of environmental abscesses. The oil-auto-concrete interests have long urged the necessity of paving over the countryside with highways. The same oil interests which argued the advisability of offshore drilling at Santa Barbara pressed for a trans-Alaska pipeline and obtained a concession in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act that in effect exempted the pipeline from NEPA to the extent that it curtailed judicial review. Other interests, notably those waiting for the great “killing” in nuclear fission, got temporary relief from NEPA. Our congested land and fouled air bear grim testimony to the success of Detroit in making fortunes out of the destruction of elemental parts of our biosphere.

We have listened as the manufacturing-industrial complex advised us on the desirability of fueling “progress” by stripping our land and using our rivers, lakes, and atmosphere as technological sewers. We have allowed commercial recreational interests to determine the advisability of “developing” our dwindling wilderness. NEPA was designed to correct in part the information void underlying our national decisionmaking mechanism. Congress knew what happens when we heed the counsel only of those who measure national advancement by GNP and the Dow Jones industrial average. Congress knew that we can trust them to supply us with voluminous economic data, but it also knew that we cannot trust them to supply us with an improved quality of life. They are not advocates of the interests of mountains, forests, streams, rivers, oceans, and coral beds, or of the wildlife that inhabit them, or the people who enjoy them. They are not useful when it comes to appraising the values of an unspoiled meadow or glacier or reef, for they think only in terms of dollars. They lack the sensitivity to be entrusted with evaluating what effect dredging will have on our estuaries. These estuaries are essential in part of the life cycle of two-thirds of the marine life. Dredging makes these estuaries biological deserts for years to come. Congress knew that the final say on these environmental matters should not be under the direct or indirect control of those who plan to make millions out of their destruction.

The people have long heard and too long heeded the advice of those with a monetary stake. NEPA was designed to augment that information with an analysis of other factors. Whether that analysis can be undertaken by those whose economic voice is already heard is an issue as yet undecided in this Court. It is an issue worthy of our determination and should be decided before the ongoing construction of the Reef Runway does irreparable injury to the environmental interests here involved. These are the considerations that led me to grant the stay. I would maintain the status quo until the termination of this litigation.

       83 Stat. 852, 42 U. S. C. § 4321 et seq.

       As the court below notes: “[A]n employee of Parsons testified as to the active involvement of the Federal Aviation Agency in the EIS preparation process. The Parsons employee concluded that the EIS ‘was more or less a joint effort by Parsons, the State and the F. A. A.’ ” 485 F. 2d 460, 467 (CA9 1973).

       “There may be controversy over how close to the brink we stand, but there is none that we are in serious trouble.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-378, p. 4 (1969).
      “By land, sea, and air, the enemies of man’s survival relentlessly press their attack. The most dangerous of all these enemies is man’s own undirected technology. The radioactive poisons from nuclear tests, the runoff into rivers of nitrogen fertilizers, the smog from automobiles, the pesticides in the food chains, and the destruction of topsoil by strip mining are examples of the failure to foresee and control the untoward consequences of modern technology.” N. Y. Times, May 3, 1969, p. 34, col. 2, quoted in H. R. Rep. No. 91-378, supra, at 3.

       Section 203 (d) of the Act, 87 Stat. 585, 43 U. S. C. § 1652 (d) (1970 ed., Supp. III), provides in part:
      “The actions taken pursuant to this title which relate to the construction and completion of the pipeline system, and to the applications filed in connection therewith necessary to the pipeline’s operation at full capacity, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Department of the Interior, shall be taken without further action under the National Environmental Policy'Act of 1969; and the actions of the Federal officers concerning the issuance of the necessary rights-of-way, permits, leases, and other authorizations for construction and initial operation at full capacity of said pipeline system shall not be subject to judicial review under any law except that claims alleging the invalidity of this section may be brought within sixty days following its enactment, and claims. alleging that an action will deny rights under the Constitution of the United States, or that the action is beyond the scope of authority conferred by this title, may be brought within sixty days following the date of such action. A claim shall be barred unless a complaint is filed within the time specified.”

       Volume 86 Stat. 191, 42 U. S. C. §2242 (1970 ed., Supp. II), an amendment of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, grants the Atomic Energy Commission the authority to issue temporary operating licenses for nuclear power reactors and provides that, under certain conditions, reactor operation may begin before environmental impact studies pertinent to full-term operation have been completed. See The AEC Amendment: Temporary Licensing of Nuclear Reactors, 10 Harv. J. Legis. 236 (1973).
      The recent Pugwash Conference held in Finland August 30-Sep-tember 4, 1973, which included 100 scientists (20 each from the United States and USSR), reported as follows on nuclear energy:
      “The as yet unsolved problem of waste management and the pos^ sibly unsolvable (in an absolute sense) problems of catastrophic releases of radioactivity and diversion of bomb-grade material, combine to create grave and justified misgivings about the vast increase in the use of nuclear power that has been widely predicted. The wisdom of such an increase must at the present time be seriously questioned.” 17 Cong. Rec. S18727 (Oct. 8, 1973).

       See, e. g., the extensive skiing development of the Mineral King Valley in Sequoia National Forest. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727 (1972).

       Congress noted in enacting NEPA that “[a]n independent review of the interrelated problems associated with environmental quality is of critical importance if we are to reverse what seems to be a clear and intensifying trend toward environmental degradation." H. R. Rep. No. 91-378, p. 3 (1969) (emphasis added).


text:
    November 26, 1973
    No. 72-1275.
    Vicenti v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    November 28, 1973
    No. 73-5588.
    Adams v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    November 29, 1973
    No. 73-5398.
    Jones v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    November 30, 1973
    No. 73-828.
    Filtrol Corp. v. Union Carbide Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    December 3, 1973
    No. 73-483.
    Sturgis et al. v. Washington et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Wash. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement granted. Judgment affirm p.d.

Me. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-498.
    Burger et al. v. Judge, Governor of Montana, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Mont.


text:
    No. 73-534.
    Human Rights Party of Washtenaw County et al. v. Secretary of State of Michigan et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. E. D. Mich.


text:
    No. 73-545.
    Spatt v. New York et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. E. D. N. Y.


text:
    No. 73-5467.
    Legion et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. Motions of Congress of Racial Equality for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and to dispense with printing denied. Motions of Black Psychiatrists of America, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and to dispense with printing denied. Motion to defer consideration denied. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Blackmun would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-5539.
    Clinton v. Municipal Court of Girard et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ohio. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 73-110.
    Zukowski v. State Bar Grievance Board of Michigan.
   Appeal from C. A. 6th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-165.
    Botens et al. v. Aronauer et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substan-

tial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-453.
    Manning v. Gilligan, Governor of Ohio, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ohio dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-5481.
    Sayles v. McGuire,
   U. S. District Judge. Appeal from D. C. D. C. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 72-5437.
    Bennett v. Department of Game of Washington et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court in Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe, ante, p. 44.


text:
    No. A-412.
    Starkey v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Application for bail presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-493.
    Terranova v. New Jersey State Prison, Rahway, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application for bail presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-500 (73-862).
    Limone v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Application for bail presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A 437 (73-5696).
    Kreager v. General Electric Co. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 72-700.
    Hernandez et al. v. Veterans’ Administration et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 411 U. S. 981.] Motion to permit two counsel to argue on behalf of petitioners granted. Motion of petitioners to permit Jack R. Petr anker, Esquire, of San Francisco, California, to argue pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 72-1371.
    Alexander, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. “Americans United” Inc.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, sub nom. Walters v. “Americans United” Inc., 412 U. S. 927.] Motion of National Jewish Commission on Law & Public Affairs for leave to file an untimely brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 72-1628.
    No. 72-1633.
    Teleprompter Corp. et al. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., et al.; and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., et al. v. Teleprompter Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 817.] Motion of Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., et al., for divided argument granted. Motion of American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 72-1633 granted.


text:
    No. 72-5830.
    Patterson v. Warner et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. W. Va. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 411 U. S. 905.] Consideration of appellant’s suggestion of mootness postponed to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 73-492.
    Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar v. Federal Republic of Germany et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 73-5508.
    No. 73-5564.
    No. 73-5582.
    No. 73-5627.
    No. 73-5630.
    No. 73-5633.
    No. 73-5645.
    No. 73-5656.
    No. 73-5668.
    No. 73-5674.
    Begun v. Warden, McNeil Island Penitentiary, et al.; Loddy v. Wyoming; Bowling v. Cox, Warden; Morton v. Wyoming; Foxworth v. Procunier, Corrections Director, et al.; Ammons v. United States; Howard v. Nevada et al.; Oaks v. Wainwright, Corrections Director; Dorrough v. Henderson, Warden; and Morris v. Superior Court of Alameda County, California, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 72-6994.
    No. 73-5106.
    No. 73-5473.
    Oaks v. Supreme Court of Florida et al.; Neeley v. Haynsworth, Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals, et al.; and Delespine v. Bates, Judge.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 73-508.
    Pfotzer et al., dba E. & E. J. Pfotzer v. Newman, U. S. District Judge.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 72-6609.
    Jimenez et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. Motion to dispense with printing amicus curiae brief of Jacqueline Severance et al. granted. Motion of appellants for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 72-1603.
    Cardwell, Warden v. Lewis.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-477.
    Gerstein v. Pugh et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-482.
    Michigan v. Tucker.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-370.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted. Motion of Heck’s Inc., for leave to intervene denied.


text:
    No. 73-439.
    No. 73-440.
    No. 73-495.
    Lehman Brothers v. Schein et al.; Simon v. Schein et al.; and Investors Diversified Services, Inc., et al. v. Schein et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument limited to the following question: “Did the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit err in not certifying the question of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to Florida’s certification procedure? Fla. Stat. Ann. §25.032 (1961), Fla. App. Rule 4.61 (1967).” Reported below: 478 F. 2d 817.


text:
    No. 73-466.
    William E. Arnold Co. v. Carpenters District Council of Jacksonville and Vicinity et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari granted. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 73-473.
    Taylor v. Hayes, Judge.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition which read as follows:

“1. When a trial judge summarily imposes consecutive sentences on eight counts of contempt aggregating four and one-half years’ imprisonment, including sentences of one year’s imprisonment on two counts, whether he or the appellate court may subsequently, in order to defeat the alleged contemnor’s right to trial by jury, reduce the sentences so that the sentence on no one count exceeds six months’ imprisonment and direct that the sentences run concurrently for a total of six months’ imprisonment?
“2. When alleged contempts have been committed by an attorney in the presence of the trial judge and the trial judge proceeds summarily to punish for contempt, whether due process requires that the attorney be given some opportunity to be heard in defense or mitigation before he is finally adjudged guilty and sentence is imposed?
“3. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the trial judge could impartially sit in judgment on multiple contempt charges against the petitioner?”


text:
    No. 73-5615.
    Codispoti et al. v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:

1. “Should petitioners receive cumulative sentences for contempt of court imposed at the end of a trial where the total effective sentence received must be used rather than the individual sentences in order to determine the seriousness of the contempt and thereby determine whether the accused should be afforded the right to a jury trial?”
2. “Should the strong possibility of a substantial term of imprisonment require that an accused be afforded the right to a jury trial?”


text:
    No. 72-6976.
    Weaver v. Texas et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-50.
    Seda v. Barbosa et al.
   Super. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied. Reported below:-P. R. R.-.


text:
    No. 73-164.
    Kanarek v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal, 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-220.
    Perez v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-242.
    No. 73-255.
    Thaggard v. United States; and Beasley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 477 F. 2d 626.


text:
    No. 73-376.
    No. 73-449.
    Coco v. United States; and Nakaladski, aka Nash v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 481 F. 2d 289.


text:
    No. 73-392.
    Daly v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-396.
    Reed et al. v. Morton, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-398.
    Emalfarb v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-407.
    Lauchli v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-411.
    Berman v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-414.
    Anggelis v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-441.
    Hurd-Darbee, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-443.
    Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-444.
    Andresen v. Bar Association of Montgomery County.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-445.
    Hamilton v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-446.
    Slegers-Forbes, Inc., et al. v. New Jersey Highway Authority et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-447.
    Cutler v. Unites States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-448.
    Slack, aka Budson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-450.
    Groth v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-451.
    Whistenant v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-452.
    City of Topeka Street Department v. Kansas Commission on Civil Rights.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari• denied.


text:
    No. 73-455.
    See v. Local Union 417, United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 73-456.
    Martinez-Martinez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 73-460.
    Troise v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-462.
    Weir v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-465.
    Titus v. Kornfield, Trustee in Bankruptcy.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-468.
    Milliman v. Friedrich et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-469.
    Signer v. Trustees of Property of Penn Central Transportation Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-472.
    Woodman et al. v. Amason et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-474.
    Smith v. Robinson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-475.
    Spilotro v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-476.
    Gross v. Medical Mutual of Cleveland, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-479.
    George Benz & Sons v. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-481.
    Houston Natural Gas Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 73-485.
    Kovats v. First National Bank of Broken Arrow.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-486.
    Virgin Island Hotel Assn. (U. S.), Inc. v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-490.
    Van de Walle v. American Cyanamid
   Co. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-493.
    Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Pignotti.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-497.
    Cannon v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-502.
    Strumskis v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-503.
    Ramsey et al. v. United Mine Workers of America.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-509.
    King v. Baer, Trustee.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-510.
    Wyandotte County, Kansas, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-511.
    Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Anderson Power & Light of City of Anderson, Indiana, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-514.
    Prince Georges County v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-515.
    Green, Administratrix v. Ross et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-520.
    Taylor v. R. H. Macy & Co., Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-522.
    Gibson & Perin Co. et al. v. City of Cincinnati et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-523.
    Alexander v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation et al.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-526.
    Alaska Helicopters, Inc., et al. v. Anderson et al.
   Super. Ct. Alaska, 3d Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-530.
    Cherup et al. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-540.
    Statham v. Riddle.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-548.
    Hahn et ux. v. Robinson Memorial Hospital.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-551.
    Smith v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-553.
    Negaard et al. v. Department of Aeronautics of California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-554.
    Philippine Ace Lines v. Seattle Stevedore Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-555.
    Lindsay, Mayor of New York, et al. v. Maye et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-559.
    Heck’s Inc. v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5063.
    Boyd v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5151.
    Watson v. Ault, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5169.
    McCray v. Schlitz, Clerk, U. S. District Court.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5203.
    Ross v. Blackledge, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5278.
    Maselli v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5288.
    D’Orsay v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5316.
    Dempsey v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5321.
    Gomez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5324.
    No. 73-5341.
    Williams v. United States; and Swanson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 484 F. 2d 176.


text:
    No. 73-5327.
    Minor v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5345.
    Julian v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5364.
    Looney v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5377.
    Lawrence v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5383.
    Salcido-Medina v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5390.
    Wurzinger v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5393.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A., 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5405.
    Stockmar v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5406.
    Zito v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5411.
    DiTommaso v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5417.
    Ramos v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5422.
    Dota v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5428.
    Snow v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5433.
    Green v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5440.
    Hines v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5441.
    Thibadoux v. Warden, Clinton Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5445.
    Kimmel v. Wyoming et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5453.
    No. 73-5458.
    Nations v. Morris et al.; and Kirkland v. Shell Oil Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 73-5453, 483 F. 2d 577; No. 73-5458, 483 F. 2d 590.


text:
    No. 73-5461.
    Polese v. Bremer et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5463.
    McNeary v. Stone, Institution Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5466.
    Gerard v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5468.
    Cooper v. Texas Board of Medical Examiners.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 8th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5471.
    Lashley v. Ford Motor Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5474.
    Paller v. Paller.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5477.
    Ring v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5488.
    Avina v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5491.
    Handverger et al. v. Harvill et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5492.
    Carter v. Hill, Attorney General of Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5493.
    Kovac v. Meacham, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5495.
    Alexander v. Michigan.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5496.
    Parson v. Anderson, Warden.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5501.
    Jones v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5504.
    Scott, aka Davis v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5505.
    Pfeifer v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5506.
    Corceller v. Bonanza International, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5509.
    Scott v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5513.
    Frist v. Haynsworth, Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5518.
    Edwards v. Blackledge, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5521.
    Hampton v. Hocker, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5522.
    Davis v. Crowell Construction Co., Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5523.
    West v. Hunt, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5528.
    Lowry v. Enomoto, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5533.
    Harden v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5544.
    Pappas v. JWJ Wholesale Distributors, Inc.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5553.
    Armato v. Correctional Superintendent, Eastern N. Y. Correctional Facility.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5554.
    Shorter v. Allen Superior Court et al.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5555.
    Gedvick v. International Union of Operating Engineers Affiliated et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5562.
    Brown v. Baldwin, Training Center Superintendent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5563.
    McDonald v. Wellons et al.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5565.
    Parks v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5574.
    Hardwick v. Georgia.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5576.
    Casperson v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5583.
    Dear v. Locke et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5589.
    Ross v. Morgan, Attorney General of North Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5596.
    Garcia v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5597.
    Serrano v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5625.
    Freed et al. v. Michigan Department of Treasury, Revenue Division.
   Ct. App. Mick. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1399.
    Coar v. Gross.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6971.
    Ortiz v. Fritz, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-162.
    Edgecombe v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-225.
    Haller v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-413.
    Shelton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-422.
    D’Ambra et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-458.
    Ragusa v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-470.
    Hetrick v. Martin et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-471.
    Reid et al. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Local Union 1093.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-484.
    Boyle v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-496.
    Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Swanson et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-506.
    Diamond Cab Company of San Diego County, Inc. v. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5205.
    Smith v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5331.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5372.
    Nunez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5400.
    Sheridan v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5403.
    Merrill v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5449.
    Shepherd v. Ross et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5502.
    Pinell v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5517.
    Tinsley v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5519.
    Karalla v. Michigan.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5542.
    Pugh et al. v. Gerstein.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6930.
    Ex parte Kent.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall

concur, dissenting.

The finality of the judgment in this case, at least with respect to the double jeopardy claim, is squarely decided by Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55, 56 (1971). After being found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed, the petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the Missouri Supreme Court, challenging the statute under which he was committed. That court found that petitioner was indeed improperly confined under the statute, since he should never have been acquitted. The judgment of acquittal was vacated and the case was remanded with instructions that “[i]f it is determined that petitioner is mentally fit to proceed, the criminal proceedings may be resumed.” On June 29, 1973, the trial court found petitioner competent and set the case for trial on October 29, 1973. Petitioner’s attorney has informed the clerk’s office that a continuance has been granted and trial is currently set for December 3, 1973. The essence of petitioner’s double jeopardy claim, raised and rejected below on petition for rehearing, is that he may not again be tried. The decision that he may be so tried is final for purposes of 28 U. S. C. § 1257:

“Since the state courts have finally rejected a claim that the Constitution forbids a second trial of the petitioner, a claim separate and apart from the question whether the petitioner may constitutionally be convicted of the crimes with which he is charged, our jurisdiction is properly invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257.” Harris v. Washington, supra, at 56.

In Harris the Washington Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition to stay a trial which petitioner claimed was barred by double jeopardy. In this case petitioner, on petition for rehearing, unsuccessfully objected to the Missouri Supreme Court’s determination that criminal proceedings be resumed upon a finding of competence, and the St. Louis Circuit Court has ordered petitioner to stand trial in accordance with the Missouri Supreme Court mandate. Although his constitutional objections to the commitment statute may not be properly before us since petitioner is no longer committed under the statute, the double jeopardy claim is properly reviewable at this point since his objection to standing trial has been rejected and petitioner has been ordered to stand trial in accordance with the mandate of the State’s highest court.

The issue as posed should at least be set for argument.


text:
    No. 73-44.
    Morrison v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-454.
    Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Ziegler.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-461.
    Grabowski v. Northern Fishing & Trading Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Association of Trial Lawyers of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-463.
    Baker et al., Trustees v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, Trustee, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Powell would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-489.
    Clark County, Nevada v. Turner, Guardian.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied, it appearing that the judgment below rests upon an adequate state ground.


text:
    No. 73-538.
    Sumbry et al. v. Land, Judge.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-552.
    Schwartz et al. v. Defender Association of Philadelphia.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Me. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-558.
    Michigan v. McMiller.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-595.
    American Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


author: Mr. Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 73-5273.
    Ross v. Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan join,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted in state court of armed robbery, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery with intent to murder. Petitioner and his codefendants are young Negroes. Their victim was a white, uniformed security guard employed by Boston University. Petitioner requested the trial judge to direct a specific question concerning racial prejudice to the prospective jurors on voir dire. The trial judge refused; instead, he made only the general inquiry mandated by Massachusetts law, whether members of the array had “expressed or formed an opinion, or [were] sensible of any bias or prejudice.” The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the conviction. - Mass. -, 282 N. E. 2d 70 (1972). Petitioner sought certiorari on the ground that he had been denied the opportunity to have the jurors examined as to racial bias, a right this Court guaranteed in Aldridge v. United States, 283 U. S. 308 (1931). We granted certiorari and remanded for reconsideration in light of Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524 (1973). On remand, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts again upheld the conviction. — Mass. -, 296 N. E. 2d 810 (1973).

The importance of the right at issue here — the opportunity to ascertain the racial bias of the veniremen — can hardly be gainsaid. The right to trial by an “impartial jury” is a cornerstone of our system of justice.

“[T]he right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, ‘indifferent’ jurors. The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. ... In the language of Lord Coke, a juror must be as ‘indifferent as he stands unsworne.’ Co. Litt. 155b. His verdict must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial. Cf. Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U. S. 199. This is true, regardless of the heinousness of the crime charged, the apparent guilt of the offender or the station in life which he occupies. It was so written into our law as early as 1807 by Chief Justice Marshall in 1 Burr’s Trial 416 (1807). ‘The theory of the law is that a juror who has formed an opinion cannot be impartial.’ Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 155.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 722 (1961) (footnote omitted ).

Accordingly, in Ham v. South Carolina, supra, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous Court, found constitutional error in a state court trial judge's refusal to propound a specific question on racial prejudice to the veniremen in the trial of a Negro for possession of marihuana.

“The State having created [the] statutory framework for the selection of juries, the essential fairness required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that under the facts shown by this record the petitioner be permitted to have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias.” 409 U. S., at 527.

Nonetheless, on remand, the Massachusetts court read our decision in Ham as limited by the particular circumstances of that case — the trial of a civil rights worker in the South. The State court found that petitioner, unlike Ham, was not likely to be a “special target for racial prejudice” and, therefore, that the trial judge did not err in refusing to make the requested inquiry.

This distinction is supported by neither logic nor precedent. Mr. Justice Rehnquist explained the basis for the Court’s decision in Ham as follows:

“The inquiry as to racial prejudice derives its constitutional stature from the firmly established precedent of Aldridge [v. United States] and the numerous state cases upon which it relied, and from a principal purpose as well as from the language of those who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 528.

In Aldridge v. United States, 283 U. S. 308 (1931), Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, writing for the Court, found that the “essential demands of fairness” required the trial judge to interrogate veniremen as to racial prejudice in the trial of a Negro for murdering a white policeman. The Court observed that “[n]o surer way could be devised to bring the processes of justice into disrepute” than to “permit it to be thought that persons entertaining a disqualifying prejudice were allowed to serve as jurors and that inquiries designed to elicit the fact of disqualification were barred.” Id., at 315.

The Aldridge Court was not concerned with whether petitioner was unpopular in the community — a special target of prejudice — but rather with the potential racial “bias of the particular jurors who are to try the accused.” Id., at 314. The Court did not rely on any particular circumstances to justify its requirements other than the fact that “the possibility of such prejudice [against Negroes] is [not] so remote as to justify the risk in forbidding the inquiry.” Ibid. (Footnote omitted.) Nor did the Court purport to limit its holding to any region because the “question is not . . . the dominant sentiment of the community . . . .” Ibid.

In Ham, this Court reaffirmed its commitment to the holding of Aldridge and clarified its constitutional underpinnings. The Court emphasized the compelling nature of an inquiry into racial prejudice — the principal target of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also indicated the importance of the state cases, of which the Aldridge Court said:

“The practice of permitting questions as to racial prejudice is not confined to any section of the country, and this fact attests the widespread sentiment that fairness demands that such inquiries be allowed." Id., at 313.

The principle that fairness demands such inquiry is, if anything, far more pervasive today than it was when Aldridge was decided, in both federal and state courts.

Yet, the Massachusetts court, by its holding, requires a Negro defendant to establish that he is a special target for racial prejudice before being entitled to an inquiry on racial bias during the voir dire of the jury. In Aldridge, this Court weighed the Government’s interests in refusing such a question, where it observed that:

“If in fact [the jurors] were found to be impartial, no harm would be done in permitting the question; but if any one of them was shown to entertain a prejudice which would preclude his rendering a fair verdict, a gross injustice would be perpetrated in allowing him to sit.” Id., at 314.

The state court should not be permitted to restrike that balance.

Finally, to say that petitioner is not a potential target of racial prejudice would be to ignore as judges what we must all know as men. That petitioner was tried in Boston, Massachusetts, while Gene Ham was tried in Florence, South Carolina, is of no consequence. Racial prejudice is a cultural malady that has shaped our history as a nation. It is a cancer of the mind and spirit which breeds as prolifically in the industrial cities of the North as in the rural towns of the South. And where, as here and in the strikingly similar circumstances of the Aldridge case, a Negro is being accused of an attack on a white policeman, it would be disingenuous at best to assert that he is not apt to be a particular target of racial prejudice.

To deny this petition for certiorari is to see our decision in Ham v. South Carolina stillborn and to write an epitaph for those “essential demands of fairness” recognized by this Court 40 years ago in Aldridge. I fear that we “bring the processes of justice into disrepute” not only by sanctioning the denial of a right required by “essential demands of fairness” but also in failing to compel compliance by the court below with a precedent of this Court barely a year since decided. I would grant the petition.

       The specific question requested was, “Are there any of you who believe that a white person is more likely to be telling the truth than a black person?”

       See Peters v. Kiff, 407 U. S. 493 (1972); Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968); Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202 (1965); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717 (1961); Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494 (1951); Lewis v. United States, 146 U. S. 370 (1892); Pointer v. United States, 151 U. S. 396 (1894).

       Although the Court was unanimous on this issue, the author and Mr. Justice Douglas dissented on another ground.

       In Ham, as in the case before us, the trial judge asked only the general questions about bias provided for by statute. This Court observed that while a trial judge is not required to put the question about racial prejudice in the exact form suggested by the defendant, the question must be “sufficient to focus the attention of prospective jurors on any racial prejudice they might entertain.” 409 U. S., at 527. The Court found the general questions propounded by the trial court insufficient for that purpose.

       Cf. H. Kalven & H. Zeisel, The American Jury 210, 339-344 (1966).

       See United States v. Carter, 440 F. 2d 1132 (CA6 1971); United States v. Gore, 435 F. 2d 1110 (CA4 1970); Silverthorne v. United States, 400 F. 2d 627 (CA9 1968); King v. United States, 124 U. S. App. D. C. 138, 362 F. 2d 968 (1966); Frasier v. United States, 267 F. 2d 62 (CA1 1959); Smith v. United States, 262 F. 2d 50 (CA4 1958); United States v. Dennis, 183 F. 2d 201 (CA2 1950), aff’d, 341 U. S. 494 (1951); Gholston v. State, 221 Ala. 556, 130 So. 69 (1930); State v. Higgs, 143 Conn. 138, 120 A. 2d 152 (1956); Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 So. 837 (1891); Herndon v. State, 178 Ga. 832, 174 S. E. 597 (1934); State v. Jones, 175 La. 1014, 144 So. 899 (1932); Giles v. State, 229 Md. 370, 183 A. 2d 359 (1962); Owen v. State, 177 Miss. 488, 171 So. 345 (1936); State v. Pyle, 343 Mo. 876, 123 S. W. 2d 166 (1938); Johnson v. State, 88 Neb. 565, 130 N. W. 282 (1911); People v. Decker, 157 N. Y. 186, 51 N. E. 1018 (1898); State v. McAfee, 64 N. C. 339 (1870); Fendrick v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 147, 45 S. W. 589 (1898).

       Cf. Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 U. S. 189 (1973) (desegregation of the Denver, Colo., school system); Bradley v. Milliken, 484 F. 2d 215 (CA6), cert. granted, ante, p. 1038 (desegregation of the Detroit, Mich., school system). See generally Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968).


text:
    No. 73-5503.
    Smith v. Alaska.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5512.
    Nelson v. Johnson, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion to defer consideration of petition and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1531.
    No. 72-1537.
    No. 72-1546.
    No. 72-1618.
    No. 72-1625.
    No. 72-1638.
    No. 72-1685.
    No. 72-1687.
    No. 72-1721.
    No. 72-1736.
    No. 72-6281.
    No. 72-6533.
    No. 72-6589.
    No. 72-6596.
    No. 72-6822.
    No. 72-6832.
    No. 72-6867.
    No. 72-6875.
    Nash v. United States, Kershaw v. Brooks et al., Moore v. Kentucky, Gimelstob v. United States, All et al. v. North Carolina, Craven v. United States, Owen v. Owen, Miller v. United States, Wainwright, Corrections Director v. Cottle, White v. Georgia, McMaster v. Connett, Warden, Beeson v. Kassos et al., Disbrow v. United States, Dapper v. O’Connor et al., Alers v. Soto, Judge, Long v. Gammill et al., Harrelson v. United States, Olden v. McCarthy, Men’s Colony Superintendent,
   ante, p. 823;

ante, p. 824;

ante, p. 865;

ante, p. 828;

ante, p. 866;

ante, p. 866;

ante, p. 830;

ante, p. 830;

ante, p. 895;

ante, p. 886;

ante, p. 814;

ante, p. 833;

ante, p. 869;

ante, p. 835;

ante, p. 892;

ante, p. 805;

ante, p. 847; and

ante, p. 847. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-6879.
    No. 73-82.
    No. 73-101.
    No. 73-148.
    No. 73-167.
    No. 73-177.
    No. 73-209.
    No. 73-224.
    No. 73-5046.
    Bailey v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co., Carden v. Brooks et al., Hunter v. United States, Shapiro v. City of New York et al., Graff Vending Co. et al. v. Hampton, dba Hampton Vending Supply, Goldstein, Receiver v. United States, Desmarais et al. v. Wachusett Regional School District et al., Rose et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Stokes v. Bruce et al.,
   ante, p. 873;

ante, p. 824;

ante, p. 857;

ante, p. 804;

ante, p. 859;

ante, p. 974;

ante, p. 859;

ante, p. 975; and

ante, p. 893. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-1545.
    No. 72-1553.
    No. 72-1592.
    Barrett v. United States, Mulligan et al. v. United States, Biddy v. Mississippi,
   ante, p. 824;

ante, p. 825; and

ante, p. 866. Motions to dispense with printing petitions for rehearing granted. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-1574.
    No. 72-1705.
    No. 72-6549.
    No. 72-6782.
    No. 73-5158.
    Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc., et al. v. United States, Carini v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of West Hartford, Kerr v. United States, Harper v. Tegtmeyer, Acting Commissioner of Patents, et al., Hawkins v. Meacham, Warden, et al.,
   ante, p. 826;

ante, p. 831;

ante, p. 868;

ante, p. 843; and

ante, p. 814. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-1604.
    No. 73-215.
    No. 73-216.
    Hewlett v. Hewlett, Falkner et ux. v. Ferguson, Judge, et al., Falkner et ux. v. Ferguson, Judge, et al.,
   ante, p. 877;

ante, p. 806; and

ante, p. 806. Motions to dispense with printing petitions for rehearing granted. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-5082.
    Wocher v. Los Angeles City School District et al.,
   409 U. S. 1042, 1131. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-168.
    Durovic, dba Duga Laboratories, et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.,
   ante, p. 944. Petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    December 10, 1973
    No. 73-623.
    Young Lords Party et al. v. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y.


text:
    No. 73-579.
    State Tax Commission of Arizona et al. v. Prudential Insurance Company of America.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ariz. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this appeal.


text:
    No. 73-621.
    Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al. v. City and County of Denver et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Colo, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. A-363 (73-5691).
    Norwoods v. California.
   Application for stay of execution of judgment and remittitur of the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-517.
    Kaplan v. Continental Can Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application for writ of mandamus and other relief presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-535.
    Epifania v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Application for stay of execution and enforcement of judgment of conviction presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 72-1490.
    No. 72-1491.
    Federal Power Commission v. Texaco Inc. et al.; and Dougherty, Executor, et al. v. Texaco Inc. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 817.] Motion of Independent Petroleum Association of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 72-1598.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Aerospace Company, Division of Textron, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 816.] Motion of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 72-5830.
    Patterson v. Warner et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. W. Va. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 411 U. S. 905.] Motion of Cletus B. Hanley to permit Phillip D. Gaujot, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 73-203.
    Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 908.] Motions of New York State Trial Lawyers Assn., NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., California Trial Lawyers Assn., and Public Citizen & Consumers Union of United States, Inc., for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 73-406.
    No. 73-5650.
    Burns, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of Iowa, et al. v. Doe et al.; and Doe et al. v. Burns, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of Iowa, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 73-615.
    Prudhomme v. Al Johnson Construction Co.-Massman Construction Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition denied with leave to file printed petition in conformity with Rule 39 of the Rules of this Court on or before December 27, 1973.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the motion.


text:
    No. 73-5747.
    Turner v. Black, Warden.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 73-557.
    Jenkins v. Georgia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. Motions of Authors League of America, Inc., National Association of Theatre Owners, and Association of American Publishers, Inc., et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 73-346.
    Anderson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-631.
    Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-5265.
    Kokoszka v. Belford, Trustee in Bankruptcy.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-5284.
    Dorszynski v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-6580.
    Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Union Local 685, AFL-CIO v. Texaco Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6720.
    Trammell v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-210.
    Frommhagen v. Scott.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-292.
    Hendrickson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-361.
    Ricord v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-512.
    Alan F. Hughes, Inc., et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-517.
    Vest et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-533.
    Signer v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-524.
    Schennault, aka Alvarez, et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-562.
    Patlogan et al. v. Dickstein, Shapiro & Galligan, now Colson & Shapiro, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-563.
    Local Union No. 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO v. Boldt et al.
   Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-564.
    Shaller v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-567.
    Stein v. City of New Berlin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-570.
    Southwire Co. et al. v. Metal Equipment Co.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-572.
    Farha et al. v. Unified School District No. 259, Wichita, Kansas, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-580.
    Richards v. Crown Point Community School Corp. et al.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-581.
    New York v. Berck.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-588.
    California State Employees’ Assn. et al. v. Flournoy et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-589.
    Union Oil Company of California v. Dugas et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-597.
    Parker v. Louisiana et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-602.
    Travelers Insurance Co. v. Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-609.
    Ells v. County of Weld et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-626.
    Mitsui O. S. K. Lines, Ltd. v. Strachan Shipping Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-633.
    Celanese Corp. et al. v. Hemphill, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-634.
    Meyer v. Seamans, Secretary of the Air Force.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-635.
    Foust v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-642.
    Empire Construction, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-643.
    No. 73-644.
    Bourns, Inc., et al. v. Allen-Bradley Co. et al.; and Allen-Bradley Co. et al. v. Bourns, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 480 F. 2d 123.


text:
    No. 73-5047.
    Falconer v. Pate, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5051.
    Gustav, aka Ferrick v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5204.
    Regalado v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5217.
    Davis v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5221.
    Rice v. Coiner, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5250.
    Roth v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5257.
    Harrison v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5258.
    Kish v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5338.
    Carter et al. v. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5357.
    Correa-Negron v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5402.
    Osorio v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5415.
    Noah v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5431.
    Morales v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5434.
    Simpson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5443.
    Sprouse et al. v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5446.
    Buchholz et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5470.
    Isaac v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5475.
    Rivera v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5511.
    Scherer v. Nevada Supreme Court et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5534.
    Lucchetti v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5594.
    DeLevay v. Downs.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5601.
    Dickey v. Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5602.
    Wilson et al. v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct.

App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5605.
    Cooper v. Louisiana.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5606.
    Lathan v. Perini, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5614.
    Tarlton v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5616.
    Scott v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5617.
    Poland v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5619.
    Lawton v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5623.
    Crothers v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5632.
    Lyons v. Indiana.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5646.
    Barbarito v. Vincent, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5662.
    Gardner et al. v. Joyce, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5671.
    Pace v. Gallagher et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-295.
    Doe et al. v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-531.
    Moody v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-625.
    Starr v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5038.
    Green v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5214.
    Conner v. Henderson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5230.
    Farmer v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5579.
    Gullage v. South Carolina et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.