text:
    No. 86-7039.
    Plain v. City of Baton Rouge et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 86-7041.
    Baltsavias v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7042.
    LeGrand v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7043.
    Seals et al. v. Pittman et al.
   Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7044.
    Stickles v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7047.
    Haywood v. Massey et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7049.
    Lay v. Kidwell et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7050.
    Dixon v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7051.
    Becker v. New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7055.
    Chestnut v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7056.
    Shakur v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7057.
    Prenzler v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7058.
    Witherspoon v. W. R. Grace & Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7062.
    Stevens v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7063.
    Merrian v. Tate, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institute.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7064.
    Stephens v. Sullivan, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7067.
    Potee v. Samberg, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7068.
    Reed v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7069.
    Mosely v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7070.
    Sabol v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7072.
    Barbara v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7073.
    Ellington v. Coombe, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7076.
    Gialto v. Reagan, President of the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7079.
    Edwards v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7080.
    Burton v. Palmer et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7081.
    Caldwell v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7083.
    Bigler v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7084.
    Reich v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7087.
    Server v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7088.
    Robinson v. White, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7089.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7090.
    Hill v. IWECO, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 800 F. 2d 1143.


text:
    No. 86-7091.
    Barron v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7092.
    Brown v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7093.
    Wabeke v. Mutual Home Federal Savings & Loan Assn. et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7095.
    Marrow v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7096.
    Thomas v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7097.
    Nowak v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7099.
    Strader v. Rogers et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7101.
    Bartkus v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7102.
    Abdus-Sammad v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7104.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7105.
    Burton v. Lambert et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7107.
    Hulsey v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7108.
    Dandar v. Dwyer et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7110.
    Lietzke v. Walker.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7111.
    Julian v. Koehler, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7116.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7117.
    Gant v. Illinois et al.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7118.
    Gray v. White, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7119.
    Latshaw v. MCA, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7122.
    Collier v. Republican National Committee et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7123.
    Nejad v. Farris.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7124.
    Gandia v. Hoke, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7125.
    Dandar v. Spaeder, Executor of the Estate of Read.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7127.
    Lebron-Gonzalez et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7128.
    Perri v. Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7130.
    Paul v. Iowa.
   Dist. Ct. Iowa, Marshall County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7133.
    Wright v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7134.
    Ramirez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7135.
    Miller v. Henman, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7136.
    Thompson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7137.
    McElroy-El v. Davis, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7138.
    Spigelski v. Pittsburgh Human Relations Commission.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7139.
    Stringer v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7140.
    Long v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7144.
    Castro v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7145.
    Griffin v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7146.
    Conley v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7148.
    Salmasian v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7150.
    Lawson v. Morris, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7152.
    Killingsworth v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7155.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7156.
    Szili et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7157.
    McGovern v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7158.
    Hines v. Johnson, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7159.
    Hickson v. McDonald, Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7161.
    Chaussard v. Fulcomer, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7163.
    Reed v. Douglas, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-7165.
    Walker v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1.
    Hansen Brothers Enterprises v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-2.
    Vahlsing v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co. et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5.
    Sasse v. Cunningham et al.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-9.
    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board of California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-11.
    Mor-Flo Industries, Inc., et al. v. State Industries, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-12.
    Eastern Connecticut Health Services, Inc., dba New London Convalescent Home v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-13.
    Charlton v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-17.
    Cowan et al. v. Myers, Acting Director, California Department of Health Services, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-18.
    Cahokia Marine Service, Inc., et al. v. American Barge & Towing Co. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-20.
    Kashani v. Purdue University et al.; and Purdue University et al. v. Kashani.
    No. 87-68.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-21.
    Morgan et al. v. St. Joseph Terminal Railroad Co. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-22.
    Osborne v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-25.
    Northern Improvement Co. et al. v. United States; and McCormick v. United States et al.
    No. 87-60.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-26.
    Stubbs v. United States (two cases).
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-27.
    Thier v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-30.
    Sisson v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-33.
    Wiedemann & Fransen, A. P. L. C. v. Hollywood Marine, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-35.
    Palmer v. City of Seattle.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-36.
    Investment Company Institute et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-37.
    Eades v. Sterlinske et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-38.
    Granada Electronics, Inc. v. Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-39.
    Gregory, Sheriff of Patrick County, Virginia v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-41.
    Belak et al. v. United States Steel Corporation Plan for Employee Pension Benefits.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-43.
    Conners v. Culinary Workers Union, Local 226.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-44.
    Tulane Hotel Investors Limited Partnership v. First Financial Bank, FSB, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-46.
    Fondo v. Sheindlin, Individually and as Judge of the Family Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-47.
    Courtright v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-48.
    A. W., a Minor, by and Through his Father and Next Friend, N. W., et al. v. Northwest R-1 School District et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-49.
    Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al. v. Brock, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-50.
    Roe I et al. v. Abortion Abolition Society et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-52.
    Merrell v. Thomas, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-53.
    Kriletich v. Commission on Judicial Performance et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-54.
    Martin, aka Marcus v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-55.
    Transcoast Navigation, Ltd., et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-58.
    Covington v. Southern Illinois University.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-63.
    Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-64.
    Neher v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-66.
    Berkman v. City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-67.
    James, Superintendent, Women’s Correctional Institution at Hardwick, Georgia v. Wisecup.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-71.
    Jacoway v. Anderson et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-72.
    Rutledge v. Rutledge.
   Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-73.
    Nichols et al. v. Rysavy et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-74.
    Bryan Memorial Hospital v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-77.
    Heath v. Cast et al.; and McKinley v. City of Riverside et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-78.
    Perry v. Raposo.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-80.
    Vida, Personal Representative of the Estate of Vida v. Patapsco & Back Rivers Railroad Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-81.
    Cheek v. Los Angeles Police Department et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-83.
    City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, et al. v. Sullivan et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-84.
    E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Johansen.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-85.
    Bushong v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-88.
    Mabry v. State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-90.
    Burton, by her Father and Next Friend and Natural Guardian, Burton, et al. v. Wilcox et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-91.
    Brewster v. Mount Vernon Hospital et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-93.
    Fusco et ux. v. Connecticut et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-94.
    American Cyanamid Co. v. Dow Chemical Co.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-95.
    Hagebush et al. v. First National Bank of Omaha; and Hagebush et al. v. Nebraska State Bar Assn. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-96.
    Onett v. Florida Bar.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-99.
    Archer v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-101.
    Herbster v. North American Company for Life & Health Insurance.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-102.
    First Affiliated Securities, Inc., et al. v. Sullivan et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-105.
    Combs v. Seaboard System Railroad, Inc.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-106.
    Hart et al. v. Zamora, Executor of the Estate of Zamora.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-108.
    Furgatch v. Federal Election Commission.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-109.
    Creamer v. Raffety et al.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-110.
    Terry v. New York.
   County Court, Broome County, N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-111.
    5 West 14th Owners Corp. v. West 14th Street Commercial Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-112.
    United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 2247, et al. v. Endicott Enterprises, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-114.
    Magyar et ux. v. United Fire Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-115.
    Olavarrieta v. United States et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-117.
    OKC Limited Partnership v. Phillips Oil Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-118.
    Maynard v. Priester.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-122.
    Mosco v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-124.
    Tafoya v. Adams et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-125.
    NEC Electronics Inc. v. Cal Circuit ABCO, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-127.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-128.
    Postel v. Texas Water Development Board et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-130.
    Bell et al. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 317, Syracuse, New York, Affiliated With the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-132.
    Pennsylvania Dental Assn. et al. v. Medical Service Association of Pennsylvania, dba Pennsylvania Blue Shield.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-136.
    Spagnuolo v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-139.
    City and Borough of Sitka v. R. W. Beck & Associates et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-143.
    Wells v. Virginia Commonwealth University et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-149.
    Niedzwiecki v. City of Bridgeport.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-150.
    Karl Schermer & Co. v. Alpha International et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J., Law Div., Union County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-151.
    Yates v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-152.
    Bergman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-155.
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) v. Cummings et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-164.
    Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local 70 of Alameda County et al. v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-165.
    Logan v. Abshire, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-166.
    Hill et al. v. Chilean Line et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-167.
    Marek et vir v. Marpan Two, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-172.
    Dunlap, dba American Arcade v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-175.
    Tango v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-177.
    Quast v. Quast.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-178.
    Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-181.
    Srulowitz v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-182.
    Aloe Coal Co. et al. v. Clark Equipment Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-184.
    Scharffe v. Perkins et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-185.
    Payne v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-187.
    Wright v. Cayan.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-189.
    King et vir v. Clare et al.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-190.
    Martin v. St. Joe Container Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-191.
    Flamm et vir v. Eberstadt et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-192.
    Funnell, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Funnell, et al. v. Jones et al.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-194.
    Ti-Coating, Inc. v. Schwarzkopf Development Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-195.
    Penk et al. v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-196.
    Dobbs v. Ford Motor Co. et al. (two cases).
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-197.
    General American Communications Corp. et al. v. Nottingham et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-198.
    Serrano v. City of Gary et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-199.
    Coeur D’Alene Tribe of Indians v. Idaho et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-200.
    Vanya et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-202.
    Fong et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-203.
    Harvey v. Subatch.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-207.
    Kerr v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-209.
    Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic et al. v. American Chiropractic Assn., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-210.
    Price v. Warnecke.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-214.
    Moore et al. v. Boating Industry Assns. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-218.
    Yeiter, a Legally Incapacitated Person, by and Through her Guardian, Yeiter v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-219.
    Bastien et al. v. R. Rowland & Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-221.
    Foreman v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-223.
    Seaboard Surety Co. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-227.
    Slovacek v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-228.
    Alumina Partners of Jamaica v. Cable Belt Conveyors, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-232.
    Leichihman v. Pickwick International et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-233.
    Hayes v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-235.
    Giry et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-236.
    Campbell v. Boeing Co.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-238.
    Cobb v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-242.
    Yarbrough, in Derivative Action on Behalf of Lavender House, Inc. v. Small Business Administration.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-243.
    Brown v. Patterson et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-254.
    Smith v. Martin, Governor of North Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-285.
    Dowell, for Dowell, Deceased v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-288.
    Sampang v. Marsh et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-290.
    Roman v. Sunny Slope Farms, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-295.
    Barrett v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-301.
    Mitchell et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-306.
    Condren et al. v. Aircraft Trading & Services, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-310.
    Wiegand v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-321.
    O’Connor v. Estate of Milhollan et al.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-322.
    Chase Revel, Inc., dba Entrepreneur Magazine v. Straw, dba Business Opportunities Digest.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-335.
    Crisp v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5001.
    Russell v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5003.
    Wagstaff-El v. Ruppersberg, White, Winter, Clark & Mister et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5005.
    Robinson v. Foltz, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5006.
    Young v. United Bank of Bismarck et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5007.
    Weaver v. Parker, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5009.
    O’Connor v. Taylor et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5010.
    Hatton v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5012.
    Colunga v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5013.
    Andrews v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5014.
    Diaz v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5015.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5016.
    Fonfrias v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5017.
    Foreman v. Internal Revenue Service et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5018.
    Buck v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5019.
    Boles v. Foltz, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5020.
    Tubbs et al. v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5021.
    Easley v. Koscinski et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5022.
    Jewell v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5023.
    Van Sant v. Arlington County, Virginia.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5024.
    Mixon v. New Orleans Police Department et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5026.
    Saunders v. Raskin et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5027.
    Villalobos v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5028.
    Mitchell v. Office of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5030.
    Nicholas v. Kulbeth.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5034.
    Licker v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5035.
    Hanson v. Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility of Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5036.
    Gross v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5041.
    Rodger v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5043.
    Montgomery v. Whitley, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5044.
    Shields v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5047.
    Parez v. City and County of San Diego.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5049.
    Baldwin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5051.
    Hughes v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5055.
    Duncan v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5056.
    Wyatt v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5058.
    O’Dell v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5059.
    Prenzler v. Superior Court of California, Orange County.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5060.
    Smith v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5061.
    Robinson v. Delaware et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5063.
    Cade et al. v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5067.
    Annonson v. Grover et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5068.
    Freeman v. Hatfield.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5069.
    Dinitz v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Kings County.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5071.
    Euler-Markus v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5072.
    D’Amario v. Providence Civic Center Authority et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5073.
    Garcia v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5074.
    Bell v. Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5075.
    Lee v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5076.
    Floyd v. Connecticut.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5078.
    Butts v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5079.
    Cogshell v. General Motors Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5080.
    Basnight v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5081.
    Gilbert v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5084.
    Foster v. Mencl et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5086.
    Furlough v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5087.
    Huffaker v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5088.
    Krapp v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5090.
    Coleman v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5091.
    Redd v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5093.
    Beard v. Dutton et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5094.
    Werner v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5097.
    Onafowokan v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5099.
    McCoy v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5101.
    Gantos v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5104.
    Gilbert v. Alabama.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5108.
    Young v. Hawaii.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5109.
    Bramlet v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5110.
    Gay v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5111.
    Kennard v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5112.
    Malik v. Ball et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5113.
    Malik v. Costello.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5114.
    Penix v. Jago, Superintendent, London Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5116.
    Perlaza v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5118.
    Roth v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5119.
    Seigler v. Bair, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5120.
    Valenciano v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5121.
    Love v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5123.
    Thomas v. Humfield et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5127.
    Daniels v. Wood, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5128.
    Sullivan v. Minnesota.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5129.
    Spann v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5131.
    Fixel v. Warden, Northern Nevada Correctional Center, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5132.
    Gerhard v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5133.
    Savage v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5135.
    Rushton v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 13th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5136.
    Bryant v. McGinnis, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5138.
    Martinez v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5140.
    Grays v. Gordon.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5141.
    Espenshade v. Pennsylvania State University et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5142.
    Johnson v. Rucker et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5144.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5145.
    Spearman v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5146.
    Oakley v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5148.
    Sturdivant v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5151.
    Kost v. Capitol Corp. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5158.
    Vrtiska v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5159.
    Barnes v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5162.
    Smith v. White, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5164.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5165.
    Gardner v. Maloney, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5166.
    Baxter v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5171.
    Nathan v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5174.
    Ponder et al. v. Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority, dba Grady Memorial Hospital.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5175.
    Piko v. Oku, Administrator, Halawa High Security Facility, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5176.
    Dodson v. Fulcomer, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5177.
    Bright v. City of Atlanta et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5178.
    Dobson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5180.
    Dooley v. Petsock, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution and Diagnostic and Classification Center at Pittsburgh.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5181.
    Grant v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5184.
    Sueing v. Heffron, Sheriff of Kent County.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5185.
    Prenzler v. Orange County Board of Supervisors.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5186.
    Young v. Coughlin, Commissioner, New York Department of Correctional Services, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5187.
    Smith v. Woods et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5189.
    Williams v. United States Postal Service et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5190.
    Anglin v. Foltz, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5191.
    Howard v. Davis et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5197.
    Atamian v. Rubin et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5198.
    Kenyatta v. Vassar et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5200.
    Roberts v. Dill et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5202.
    Paoli v. Lally et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5204.
    Williams v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5207.
    Kajita v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5209.
    Arango v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5210.
    James v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5211.
    Howell v. Duckworth et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5213.
    Barnes v. Samberg, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5214.
    Becklin v. Hawaii.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5216.
    Graves v. Jones, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5217.
    Ogrizovich v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5218.
    Ryan v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5219.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5220.
    Mauro v. Board of Higher Education et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5221.
    Marr v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5225.
    Hoppins v. Alabama et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5226.
    Kendall v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5227.
    Ditges v. Sanborn et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5229.
    Raprager v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. 111., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5232.
    Williams v. Joiner.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5235.
    Williams v. City of Washington, D. C., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5236.
    Thomas v. Warden, Maryland House of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5237.
    Warren v. Wyoming, Michigan, Police Department et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5238.
    Smith v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5239.
    Raitport v. Evershine, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5240.
    Hoffler v. A & H Garcia Trash Hauling, Inc.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5242.
    Van Sant v. Hudson et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5243.
    Morgan v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. 111., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5245.
    Gentry v. Foltz, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5249.
    Walker v. Leak, Director, Department of Corrections, Cook County, Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5250.
    Sweeney v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5252.
    Johnson v. Chandler, Mayor, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5253.
    Abayomi v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5254.
    Allah v. LeFevre, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5255.
    Bejarano v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5260.
    Williams v. Brown.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5262.
    Bulled v. Griffin et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5263.
    Bryan v. Warden, Indiana State Reformatory.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5264.
    Foster v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5270.
    Martin v. Townsend et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5271.
    Romero-Romero v. United States; and Gomez-Parra v. United States.
    No. 87-5281.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5274.
    Mason v. Brasher et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5275.
    Shipley v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5276.
    Eagle Elk v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5278.
    McGill v. New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5279.
    Wallace v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5280.
    Zatko v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5282.
    Pinkins v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5285.
    Stewart v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5286.
    Holmes v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5287.
    Lawson v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5289.
    Vass v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5290.
    Moore v. Zimmerman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution and Diagnostic and Classification Center at Graterford.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5291.
    Melia v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5293.
    Sandidge v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5297.
    Rivera v. Wells Fargo Credit Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5303.
    Tratar v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5305.
    Tisdale v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5306.
    Paskins et al. v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5308.
    Thacker et ux. v. Great American Insurance Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5309.
    De La Cerda v. Chemeketa Community College District et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5317.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5324.
    Rodger v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5326.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5339.
    Massey v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5342.
    Nealy v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5358.
    Saulsberry v. Barksdale, Sheriff of Shelby County, Tennessee, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5368.
    Barco v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5372.
    Novachich v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5386.
    Parker v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5395.
    Munoz v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5397.
    Silva-Piedrahita v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1170.
    McKinney v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment of conviction.


text:
    No. 86-1470.
    Crowley et al. v. Shultz, Secretary of State, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 86-1871.
    National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 86-1967.
    Tavoulareas v. Washington Post Co. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 86-1627.
    City of Angoon et al. v. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Nunam Kitlutsisti for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1681.
    Russo et al. v. Mitchell et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 86-1704.
    Maynard, Warden, et al. v. Dutton.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1936.
    Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections v. Wilson.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1943.
    McCarthy, Director, California Department of Corrections v. Carter.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-2064.
    Pipes et al. v. Benny.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-89.
    Foltz, Warden v. Thomas.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-97.
    Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections v. Bundy.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-213.
    Kincheloe v. Hayes.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1712.
    TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. United States Department of the Interior et al.
   Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1719.
    Executive Committee Members et al. v. Union of India et al.; and Union of India v. Union Carbide Corp. et al.
    No. 86-1860.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of National Council of Churches of Christ in the U. S. A. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1733.
    Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D. C. v. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 86-1767.
    Walton et ux. v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., San Diego County. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment.


text:
    No. 86-1870.
    Cronson, Auditor General of Illinois v. Clark, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Illinois, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner to consider this case with No. 86-1773, Cronson, Auditor General of Illinois v. Madden, Acting Director, Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1981.
    Sun Ship, Inc. v. California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. for damages denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1990.
    West 14th Street Commercial Corp. et al. v. 5 West 14th Owners Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of Council for Owner-Occupied Housing, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-2042.
    Standley et al. v. United States Tax Court (Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Real Party in Interest).
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioners to consolidate this case with No. 86-1217, Russoniello et al. v. Olagues et al. [certiorari granted, 481 U. S. 1012], denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-2068.
    Hardin v. McMaster.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed as a veteran denied. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 86-6765.
    Marquez v. Texas. Johnson v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. Hogan v. Nevada. Snell v. Arkansas. Allen v. California. Rector v. Texas. South v. South Carolina. Cantu v. Texas. Jefferson v. Georgia. Howard v. Nevada. Byrd v. Missouri. Thompson v. Alabama. Bobo v. Tennessee. Austin v. Tennessee. Granviel v. Texas. Sparks v. Tennessee. Perry v. Louisiana. Johnson v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. LaGrand v. Arizona. Palmer v. Nebraska. Lingar v. Missouri. May v. Texas. Harris v. Texas. LaGrand v. Arizona. Gray v. Virginia. Pope v. Georgia. Davis v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. Hill v. Arkansas. Christiansen v. Illinois. Bush v. Florida. Workman v. Tennessee. Demps v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al. Bolender v. Florida. McNish v. Tennessee. Guinan v. Missouri. Felde v. Butler, Warden. Titone v. Illinois. Banks v. Pennsylvania. Brown v. Kemp, Superintendent, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center. Williams v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. Bates v. Florida. Silagy v. Illinois. Moore v. Oklahoma.

      No. 86-6845.
    No. 86-6855.
    No. 86-6865.
    No. 86-6878.
    No. 86-6880.
    No. 86-6887.
    No. 86-6904.
    No. 86-6933.
    No. 86-6937.
    No. 86-6941.
    No. 86-6953.
    No. 86-6978.
    No. 86-6983.
    No. 86-6989.
    No. 86-7005.
    No. 86-7015.
    No. 86-7022.
    No. 86-7040.
    No. 86-7061.
    No. 86-7074.
    No. 86-7082.
    No. 86-7103.
    No. 86-7112.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Nev.;

Sup. Ct. Ark.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Ct. Common Pleas of Lexington County, S. C-;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Nev.;

Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist.;

Sup. Ct. Ala.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

Sup. Ct. La.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Ariz.;

Sup. Ct. Neb.;

Sup. Ct. Mo.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Ariz.;

No. 86-7114.

No. 86-7129.

No. 87-5011.

No. 87-5025.

No. 87-5029.

No. 87-5033.

No. 87-5040.

No. 87-5042.

No. 87-5089.

No. 87-5098.

No. 87-5100.

No. 87-5117.

No. 87-5139.

No. 87-5152.

No. 87-5192.

No. 87-5203.

No. 87-5215.

No. 87-5258.

No. 87-5268.

Sup. Ct. Va.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. Ark.;

Sup. Ct. 111.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist.;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. 111.;

Sup. Ct. Pa.;

Super. Ct. Ga., Butts County;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. 111.; and

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 86-6809.
    Mabry et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 87-40.
    Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hawkins et ux.
   Sup.’ Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 86-6923.
    Brown v. Dodd, Sheriff.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

I continue to believe that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting). But even if I did not hold this view, I would grant the petition for writ of certiorari in order to consider whether a defendant evaluated for competency by a state-appointed examiner has a due process right to an examiner whose qualifications and procedures meet minimal professional standards. The trial court failed to consider this question, and its conclusory order raises doubt as to whether the strictures of due process were met in this case.

I

Petitioner James Willie Brown has a 20-year history of severe mental illness. When he was arrested for murder in 1975, petitioner already had been institutionalized on three prior occasions. Over the next six years, petitioner was continually adjudged incompetent to stand trial. Petitioner spent most of that time institutionalized at Central State Hospital, where he was consistently diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. In 1977, the hospital reported that petitioner was competent to stand trial, but petitioner’s mental condition deteriorated after he was transferred to the local jail and on the joint motion of the State and his counsel, he was recommitted to Central State as incompetent. Petitioner remained at Central State until 1980, when a hospital doctor again determined petitioner could stand trial. Although petitioner’s doctors had noted his history of aggravated illness during periods of incarceration and had recommended that he be kept at the hospital until just before trial, petitioner was jailed until his competency trial in April 1981. During this time, a physician at the jail examined petitioner and once again found him incompetent; petitioner’s counsel was never informed of this evaluation.

Petitioner filed a demand for speedy trial early in 1981, and a competency trial was scheduled before a special jury. The morning of trial, the court appointed Lewis Collins to evaluate petitioner’s competency. Collins had received his Ph.D. from the Georgia State University only 10 days before. He was not a licensed psychologist, and in fact later failed the state licensing examination twice. He had received no formal training in conducting competency evaluations. Collins’ entire evaluation of petitioner’s competency consisted of one 20-minute interview. Collins did not talk to any of the doctors who previously had examined petitioner, he performed no psychological testing, and the only record he examined was a short discharge summary from Central State. From this meager examination, Collins concluded that petitioner was competent to stand trial. The jury agreed, and three months later petitioner was tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

At the instant state habeas proceeding, a number of experts testified that Collins’ qualifications and examination for competency were substandard. The trial court nevertheless determined without explanation that Collins “was qualified by his education and experience to give an opinion as to the sanity of the Petitioner.” App. to Pet. for Cert. B-2. The court therefore concluded that “[t]he jury properly found the Petitioner competent to stand trial based upon the evidence before it.” Ibid. The Supreme Court of Georgia then denied petitioner’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal.

II

In Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68, 83 (1985), this Court held that “when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to’ be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” The guarantee recognized in Ake, it is important to stress, is not just that the State ensure access to a psychiatrist, but that it ensure that the psychiatrist be a competent professional who will perform an appropriate examination. Similarly, our cases interpreting the constitutional guarantee of counsel have recognized that that guarantee comprehends a degree of competence; thus, a State cannot discharge its duty to provide counsel by appointing an attorney who fails to render adequate legal assistance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 685-686 (1984). See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U. S. 387, 396 (1985) (“[Njominal representation on an appeal as of right — like nominal representation at trial — does not suffice to render the proceedings constitutionally adequate; a party whose counsel is unable to provide effective representation is in no better postition than one who has no counsel at all”).

The instant case calls upon the Court to determine whether an expert appointed by the State to evaluate a defendant’s competency to stand trial must meet similar minimum standards. Although we have never confronted the issue directly, I have no doubt that the Due Process Clause incorporates such a safeguard. We already have recognized that “the failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 172 (1975). An examination that meets minimum professional standards performed by a competent psychologist or psychiatrist must count among these adequate procedures. Expert testimony is the most compelling evidence offered to a jury charged with the task of evaluating a defendant’s competency to stand trial. As we have recognized in the context of an evaluation of sanity, “[w]hen jurors make this determination about issues that inevitably are complex and foreign, the testimony of psychiatrists can be crucial. . . .” Ake v. Oklahoma, supra, at 81. Indeed, a defendant subjected to a substandard examination by an unqualified professional may be placed in a worse position than a defendant who is denied an evaluation in the first place. If the “expert” concludes the defendant is competent to stand trial, that conclusion is cloaked in the special authority that we have recognized an expert witness conveys to the jury. See 470 U. S., at 81, n. 7. I therefore believe that when a State appoints an examiner to evaluate a defendant’s competency to stand trial, the Constitution requires that the examiner possess minimum professional qualifications and that his examination procedures conform to minimum professional standards.

The trial court apparently did not believe this case raised any constitutional concerns, and it did not consider whether Collins’ examination was consistent with the requirements of the Due Process Clause. In my view, there appears to be serious doubt as to whether petitioner’s due process rights were met in this case. Collins’ qualifications were, at best, undistinguished. Collins, who had received his psychology degree only 10 days before he evaluated petitioner, had never taken Georgia’s licensing examination, and he later failed that examination twice. The Chairman of the Board of Examiners of Psychology for the State of Georgia testified at the habeas trial that the licensing examination measures minimum skills and that a person who had failed the test twice might not be qualified to act as a psychologist. Pet. for Cert. 7. Even if Collins were considered qualified to make an evaluation of competency, his examination of petitioner in this case appears to have been hopelessly substandard. Every expert who testified at the habeas trial indicated that Collins’ examination was deficient. Collins performed no psychological tests, consulted none of the doctors who previously had examined petitioner, and did not even bother to read most of petitioner’s file. This approach is especially suspect in light of petitioner’s long history of mental illness and 6-year history of incompetency. I would grant the petition for certiorari to consider whether this treatment can be squared with the due process right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial.


text:
    No. 86-7054.
    Johnson v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting), I would vacate the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals insofar as it left undisturbed the death sentence imposed in this case. But even if I did not hold this view, I would grant this petition for certiorari for two reasons. First, the trial court incorrectly decided an unsettled question of law concerning an accused’s right to the assistance of experts in preparing his defense. Second, the trial court’s instructions at the sentencing hearing, in combination with the prosecutor’s closing argument, deprived petitioner of his right to have the sentencing jury consider all of the mitigating evidence he offered.

I

Petitioner Malcolm Johnson was charged with the first-degree murder of Ura Thompson, an elderly woman who had been raped and suffocated in her apartment. Recognizing that the prosecution’s case against petitioner rested largely on the opinion of a police chemist, who would testify that petitioner’s hair, blood, semen, and clothing were consistent with physical evidence found in Thompson’s apartment, petitioner’s counsel requested the court prior to trial to appoint a chemist to aid in petitioner’s defense. Counsel argued that a chemist was needed to challenge the police chemist’s qualifications and testimony and to conduct an electrophoresis test, which even the prosecution conceded could show that petitioner was not the perpetrator of the crime. The trial court agreed -with counsel that the appointment of a chemist was warranted, but denied the request on the ground that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals previously had rejected the view that criminal defendants were entitled to the assistance of such experts. Brief in Opposition 8.

At trial, the prosecution presented two kinds of evidence. First, the prosecution offered evidence showing that petitioner had in his possession at the time of his arrest several items missing from Thompson’s apartment. Second, the prosecution presented the testimony of the police chemist. The prosecutor referred to the chemist’s testimony as the “real crux” of the State’s case against petitioner. Id., at 15. The jury convicted petitioner of first-degree murder.

During a separate sentencing proceeding, defense counsel offered mitigating evidence relating to petitioner’s personal background. Witnesses testifying on behalf of petitioner stated, for example, that petitioner’s father frequently had beaten petitioner and his mother, that petitioner’s parents eventually had separated, that petitioner had grown up in poverty, and that petitioner as a youngster had suffered from a mysterious and debilitating illness requiring a long hospital stay. Immediately after defense counsel offered this evidence, the trial court instructed the jury. As part of the charge, the trial court stated: “[Y]ou should not allow sympathy, sentiment or prejudice to affect you in reaching your decision. You should avoid any influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor when imposing sentence.” Id., at 19. After the delivery of these instructions, the prosecutor gave his closing argument, in which he ridiculed the mitigating evidence that petitioner’s counsel had offered. The prosecutor stated:

“I’ve got great empathy for his folks. But so what? . . . [H]is parents divorced when he was young. Oh, wow. . . . That’s a mitigating factor for violent conduct. That’s bologna [sic]. . . . Deprivation builds character. We ought to have fewer silver spoons in the mouths of our children and a little more deprivation. He wants to use that as a mitigating circumstance. ... I was offended by what happened in this courtroom when the little children were placed on the witness stand to try to generate sympathy for a cold-blooded killer. ... So what if he was sick or retarded: What’s that got to do with — we’re dealing with what he is today. . . . Not whether he had a disease when he was a baby, not whether he was mildly retarded at some time in his life.” Id., at 20-21.

At the close of the sentencing hearing, the jury recommended a sentence of death, and the court imposed that sentence.

II

This Court long has acknowledged that when a State brings criminal proceedings against an indigent defendant, it must take steps to ensure that the accused has a meaningful opportunity to present a defense. See, e. g., Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956). Although the State need not purchase for an indigent defendant all of the services that the wealthy may buy, see Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600, 616 (1974), the State must provide the defendant with the “basic tools of an adequate defense,” Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U. S. 226, 227 (1971). We recently have begun to confront the questions whether and when expert assistance is such a basic tool. In Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68, 80 (1985), we recognized that when a defendant’s mental condition is at issue, the assistance of a psychiatrist is “crucial to the defendant’s ability to marshal his defense” and the State must therefore provide psychiatric assistance. A few months later, in Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320, 323, n. 1 (1985), we reserved the equally important questions whether and when an indigent defendant is entitled to nonpsychiatric expert assistance. This case demonstrates the pressing need to consider and resolve those questions.

The denial of petitioner’s request for the appointment of an expert chemist resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial in two respects. First, the denial prevented petitioner from raising doubts about the strength of the State’s evidence against him. The prosecution’s case against petitioner rested largely on the testimony of the police chemist that petitioner’s bodily fluids, hair, and clothing comported with samples found at the scene of the crime. We previously have recognized that “‘testimony emanating from the depth and scope of specialized knowledge is very impressive to a jury.’” Ake v. Oklahoma, supra, at 81, n. 7 (quoting F. Bailey & H. Rothblatt, Investigation and Preparation of Criminal Cases § 175 (1970)). Without expert assistance, a defendant will usually be powerless to create doubts in the jury’s mind about such testimony’s strength or correctness. As Justice (then Chief Judge) Cardozo once stated, a defendant is “at an unfair disadvantage if he is unable because of poverty to parry by his own [expert] witnesses the thrusts of those against him.” Reilly v. Berry, 250 N. Y. 456, 461, 166 N. E. 165, 167 (1929). Petitioner here was at such a disadvantage with respect to testimony that the prosecutor termed the “real crux” of the State’s case. Second and equally important, the denial of the request for expert assistance prevented petitioner from gaining potentially conclusive exculpatory evidence in support of his affirmative alibi defense. As petitioner’s counsel explained to the trial court, petitioner desired expert assistance partly because he wanted to undergo a test that could have conclusively disproved his commission of the crime. In Little v. Streater, 452 U. S. 1 (1981), this Court held that a State’s refusal to pay for a blood-grouping test in the context of a quasi-criminal proceeding to establish paternity violated the requirements of due process. Yet the trial court here effectively prevented an accused charged with a capital offense from gaining access to a similar kind of test. By denying petitioner the chance to obtain potentially conclusive exculpatory evidence, as well as by denying him the means to challenge the testimony of the police witness, the rejection of the request for expert assistance deprived petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to present a defense.

Ill

In California v. Brown, 479 U. S. 538 (1987), this Court upheld a jury instruction cautioning jurors that they “must not be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling” during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial. In holding that the instruction did not suggest to the jury that it should disregard sympathetic aspects of the accused’s background or character, the Court argued primarily that by cautioning the jury not to rely on “mere sympathy,” the instruction directed the jury to ignore “only the sort of sympathy that would be totally divorced from the evidence adduced during the penalty phase.” Id., at 542. In a concurring opinion, Justice O’Connor stated that although this jury instruction, taken alone, was constitutional, courts must recognize and guard against the possibility that instructions “attempt[ing] to remove emotion from capital sentencing,” especially when combined with certain kinds of prosecutorial remarks, will mislead juries into thinking that they should ignore mitigating evidence about a defendant’s background or character. Id., at 545-546. I continue to believe that any instruction forbidding the sentencer to take sympathy into account “precludes precisely the response that a defendant’s evidence of character and background is designed to elicit, thus effectively negating the intended effect of the Court’s requirement that all mitigating evidence be considered.” Id., at 548 (Brennan, J., dissenting). But even under the majority’s view in Brown, the instruction in this case, when considered in conjunction with the prosecutor’s comments, diverted the jury from its constitutional duty to consider all mitigating evidence introduced by the defendant at the sentencing phase of the trial.

The problem in this case arises both from the trial court’s instruction to the jury and from the prosecutor’s closing argument. The instruction cautioned the jury to disregard not “mere sympathy,” but “sympathy” in general, which surely includes the sympathy deriving from petitioner’s mitigating evidence. The prosecutor’s closing argument emphatically endorsed the suggestion that the jury should disregard the mitigating evidence petitioner had offered. By consistently ridiculing the evidence relating to petitioner’s background — by saying time and again “so what?”— the prosecutor indicated that such evidence was irrelevant to the sentencing determination. Thus, the conjunction of the court’s antisympathy instruction and the prosecutor’s closing argument diverted the jury from considering the factors of background and character that this Court has decreed a jury must take into account in reaching a sentencing determination.

IV

The handling of this case almost ensured that petitioner would not prevail at either the guilt phase or the sentencing phase of his trial. The denial of the request for expert assistance deprived petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to contest his guilt. The court’s antisympathy instruction and the prosecutor’s closing argument denied petitioner a fair chance to challenge the appropriateness of the death penalty. Because I believe that the trial court unconstitutionally stacked the deck against petitioner at both stages of this capital proceeding, I would grant the petition for certiorari.


author: Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 86-7066.
    Muehleman v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting), I would vacate the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court insofar as it left undisturbed the sentence of death imposed in this case. But even if I did not hold this view, I would grant this petition for writ of certiorari in order to clarify the relationship between several recent precedents of this Court. Our opinions in United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264 (1980), Maine v. Moulton, 474 U. S. 159 (1985), and Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S. 436 (1986), all examined the circumstances in which the police may, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, obtain incriminating statements from an accused through an informant. We found Sixth Amendment violations in Henry and Maine, but not in Kuhlmann, relying on the slightly different factual circumstances of the cases. These divergent rulings create a potential for misunderstanding when other courts seek to interpret them, as the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in this case demonstrates. We should grant certiorari to resolve the uncertainty created by our own holdings.

I

On May 2, 1983, 96-year-old Earl Baughman hired petitioner, 18-year-old Jeffrey Allen Muehleman, as a “helper.” On May 4, petitioner took Baughman to the bank to cash his Social Security check. On May 5, Baughman and his 1961 Cadillac were reported missing. The following day, sheriff’s deputies of Pinellas County, Florida, detained petitioner to ask him about the disappearance. Petitioner told a deputy that his name was “Ed Buchanan.” He was then arrested for obstructing justice by giving false information, an offense later declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court in Bunnell v. State, 453 So. 2d 808 (1984). Petitioner waived his Miranda rights and gave a statement that included his true name and a confession to taking some small items without Baughman’s permission. Petitioner denied, however, any involvement in Baughman’s disappearance. After Baughman’s body was found in the trunk of his Cadillac on a St. Petersburg, Florida, street, the police again interviewed petitioner at the maximum-security county jail facility where he was being held. Petitioner continued to deny any involvement in Baughman’s death.

While he was in the Pinellas County Jail, petitioner came into contact with Ronald Rewis, who was awaiting sentence on a felony conviction. According to Rewis, petitioner confessed in detail to the murder of Baughman during unsolicited conversations with Rewis in the jail laundry where both inmates worked. Rewis, who had provided- information to correctional officials on at least two previous occasions, then contacted a correctional official who put him in touch with the detectives investigating Baughman’s disappearance and death. The detectives told Rewis to let them know if petitioner said anything else and persuaded him to wear a wire to get a tape of petitioner’s confession. Rewis then taped a conversation with petitioner in the recreation yard. On the tape, Rewis asked petitioner why he did not merely take the old man’s money, to which petitioner responded that he had planned all along to kill the man. Pet. for Cert. 8. When Rewis asked petitioner whether the killing bothered him, petitioner responded “no” and laughed. Ibid. Although Rewis was not paid for his cooperation with the investigation, one of the detectives agreed to appear at Rewis’ sentencing hearing, at which he received a much lighter sentence than that recommended by the prosecutor.

The detectives, tape in hand, interviewed petitioner again. Petitioner initially continued to deny his involvement with the crime, but when confronted with the evidence against him, including the statements taped by Rewis, petitioner admitted killing Baughman and gave a detailed statement. The detectives then booked petitioner on charges of first-degree murder.

Petitioner filed a pretrial motion to suppress his statements to Rewis and his subsequent confession. When his suppression motion was denied, petitioner entered a plea of guilty. At a penalty trial before a jury, petitioner continued to object to the admission of Rewis’ testimony and the tape Rewis had made. During closing argument, the prosecution played a portion of the tape and argued that petitioner’s laughter when asked about the murder supported imposition of the death penalty. By a vote of 10 to 2, the jury recommended that petitioner be sentenced to death, and the trial court so sentenced him. On appeal, petitioner raised a host of challenges to his conviction and sentence, all of which were rejected by the Florida Supreme Court. 503 So. 2d 310 (1987). In his petition for a writ of certiorari, petitioner focuses solely on the government’s use of Rewis to obtain incriminating statements from him while he was in jail.

II

We first considered the problem of the inmate informant in United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264 (1980). We held that Henry’s right to counsel was violated when the Government used a paid informant’s testimony regarding incriminating statements made by Henry while he was jailed awaiting trial. Three factors convinced us that the Government had overstepped the bounds of the Sixth Amendment. First, the informant was paid a contingent fee for information he obtained. Second, Henry was unaware that his confidant was in fact a Government informant. Third, Henry’s incarceration imposed psychological pressures that rendered him “particularly susceptible to the ploys' of undercover Government agents.” Id., at 274. We concluded that “[b]y intentionally creating a situation likely to induce Henry to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, the Government violated Henry’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” Ibid.

In Maine v. Moulton, 474 U. S. 159 (1985), we applied the analysis developed in Henry to a situation outside of the jailhouse setting. We held that Moulton’s right to counsel was violated when the State made a deal with his codefendant in which the codefendant would surreptitiously record Moulton’s statements in return for a favorable plea bargain. The State wired the codefendant when he attended an all-day meeting with Moulton, at Moulton’s request, to plan their common defense. We rejected the argument that Moulton’s initiation of the meeting exonerated the State from any wrongdoing. We held that “the Sixth Amendment is violated when the State obtains incriminating statements by knowingly circumventing the accused’s right to have counsel present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent.” 474 U. S., at 176.

In Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S. 436 (1986), decided the same Term as Moulton, we returned to the jailhouse setting. Wilson was incarcerated pending trial and placed in a cell with a prisoner who had previously agreed to act as a government informant. The State instructed the informant only to listen to Wilson’s comments and not to ask any questions. The informant complied with this directive. We held that the informant in this case played the constitutionally permissible role of a mere “listening post.” Kuhlmann v. Wilson, supra, at 456, n. 19. We found that this fact distinguished Kuhlmann from Henry and Moulton, concluding that “the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks.” 477 U. S., at 459.

In the instant case, the State of Florida, in opposition to the petition for wit of certiorari, urges that the facts found by the state court demonstrate that this case falls within Kuhlmann’s exception to the doctrine enunciated in Henry and Moulton. The Florida Supreme Court found four facts on which it based its Sixth Amendment holding. First, petitioner was “apparently eager to talk” and initially approached Rewis to discuss the crime with him. Second, Rewis approached the authorities on his own initiative. Third, the authorities instructed Rewis not to question petitioner. Fourth, Rewis was not promised any form of compensation for his cooperation. See 503 So. 2d, at 314.

A careful reading of our precedents, however, demonstrates that these facts do not suffice to shield the government from Sixth Amendment challenge in this case. First, we explicitly rejected in Moulton the notion that the defendant’s initiation of contact with the informant is relevant to the Sixth Amendment issue. 474 U. S., at 174-176. Second, the fact that Rewis initially approached the authorities is insignificant given that the authorities suggested that he be wired. In Moulton, we found it compelling that “the police asked [the informant] to let them put a body wire transmitter on him to record what was said.” Id., at 177. Third, the mere fact that Rewis was instructed not to ask petitioner questions cannot bring this case into the ambit of Kuhlmann, because an identical instruction was given to the informant in Henry. See United States v. Henry, supra, at 266. What we found compelling in Kuhlmann was not merely that the informant was instructed to remain silent, but that he actually did so. It is undisputed in the instant case that Rewis asked petitioner crucial questions concerning why he had killed Baughman and how he felt about it. Pet. for Cert. 8. Finally, the lack of monetary compensation offered Rewis cannot distinguish this case from our contrary holdings. Although the informant in Henry was paid a contingent fee, there is no suggestion that the informant in Moulton was offered anything other than a favorable plea bargain. The favorable sentencing treatment afforded Rewis in this case is along much the same lines. In sum, none of the facts found by the Florida court successfully distinguishes this case from Henry and Moulton. As I read our precedents, Kuhl mann represents the only exception that we have yet recognized to the prohibition established in Henry and Moulton, and that exception may be invoked only in cases in which the informant can truly be described as a mere “listening post.” This is not such a case.

Ill

Although I think that the Florida Supreme Court misread our precedents in rejecting petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim, its error is one that is lamentably easy to make. Our precedents in this area involve several factual scenarios that vary only slightly. We have given little guidance on which factual variations are relevant to or dispositive of Sixth Amendment claims. We owe it to law enforcement officials and the courts to establish clearly the line across which constitutional error lies. For that reason, we should grant this petition for certiorari.


text:
    No. 86-7075.
    Craig et al. v. North Carolina.
   Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Cabarrus County, N. C. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

I continue to believe that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting). But even if I did not hold this view, I would grant this petition for certiorari because the state courts failed to give proper consideration to a recantation by the prosecution’s star witness that throws grave doubt on the propriety of sentencing petitioners to death.

I

A grand jury indicted petitioners Andrew Weddington Craig and Francis Marion Anthony in 1981 for the offenses of first-degree murder, common-law robbery, and robbery with a dangerous weapon. At trial, the prosecution attempted to prove that petitioners and Betty Jean Howie had robbed Seab and Edith Ritch and then had killed Edith Ritch by stabbing her repeatedly. Howie’s testimony was the only evidence offered to show that petitioners had participated in the stabbing. Howie stated that she and petitioners had taken turns stabbing Edith Ritch with a pocketknife. This testimony was, at the very least, undermined by medical testimony that the multiple stab wounds were “very much uniform in depth, range, uniform in angle of penetration and probably uniform forcewise.” Pet. for Cert. 6. • At the close of trial, petitioners were convicted of all charges and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the convictions and sentences. 308 N. C. 446, 302 S. E. 2d 740 (1983). Howie pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree and received a sentence of life imprisonment.

A few months after the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed petitioners’ convictions and sentences, petitioner Anthony received an unsolicited letter from Howie stating that she wanted to “g[o] back to court and tel[l] the truth” about the cáse. Pet. for Cert. 7. Petitioners immediately filed a joint motion for appropriate relief, and the trial court held a hearing at which Howie testified. In her testimony, Howie stated that she alone had stabbed Edith Ritch, although petitioners had participated in the robbery and remained on the scene during the murder. Howie further testified that she was recanting her trial testimony over the objections of her family and her counsel, who had warned her that the recantation would expose her to further prosecution. Howie explained that “I was trying to live with a lie and no one knows . . . what it has done to me, what it has taken me through.” Id., at 8. After listening to Howie’s testimony, the trial court denied petitioners’ motion for relief. In a cursory decision, the court first found that the recantation testimony was “probably not true” and “in some instances [was] incredible.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-2. The court then stated that even if the recantation were true, it would not change the result of the prior proceedings because the recantation itself showed that petitioners had “attempted to kill, or participated in the killing, or intended it, or contemplated that life may be taken in the commission of the felony robbery.” Id., at A-3.

II

The trial court’s conclusion that Howie’s recantation, if believed, would not change the result of the prior proceedings is insupportable under our case law. That conclusion rests on the view that a sentencer may permissibly impose the death sentence if the defendant “contemplated that life may be taken in the commission” of a felony. In Tison v. Arizona, 481 U. S. 137 (1987), however, this Court explicitly rejected such a view. We stated that the death penalty is supportable in felony-murder cases only upon a finding of intent to kill or upon a finding of reckless indifference to human life on the part of a major participant in the felony. Id., at 157-158. The trial court’s determination that Howie’s recantation would not change the result of the sentencing proceeding thus was premised on an improper view of when the death sentence may constitutionally be imposed. In these circumstances, the determination cannot support the denial of petitioners’ requested relief. That denial must rest, if at all, on the court’s determination of the credibility of Howie’s recantation testimony.

I believe, however, that the court’s credibility finding is constitutionally deficient. This Court often has recognized that the stark finality of the death penalty creates an enhanced “need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.” Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 305 (1976) (plurality opinion). In capital cases, we therefore have “invalidated procedural rules that tended to diminish the reliability of the sentencing determination” and have imposed a range of procedural safeguards in their place. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625, 638 (1980). In keeping with this practice, I previously have espoused the view that when a life is hanging in the balance, a court may not reject the recantation of critical testimony without providing a specific explanation of “what it is about that recantation that warrants a conclusion that it is not credible evidence.” Dobbert v. Wainwright, 468 U. S. 1231, 1235-1236 (1984) (Brennan, J., dissenting). The lower court in this case failed to give even the semblance of such an explanation. Perhaps because the court believed the credibility determination to be superfluous in light of the court’s alternative holding, the court said nothing more than that the recantation was “probably not true” and “in some instances [was] incredible” The denial of petitioners’ motion for relief on so slight a basis is inconsistent with the requirement of heightened procedural protections to ensure the reliability of sentencing determinations in capital cases.

Ill

Only three persons know who stabbed Edith Ritch. Two have insisted for many years that they took no part in the stabbing. The third, whose testimony provided the sole support for the prosecution’s theory of the murder, now has confirmed their claim. There may be reasons to discount this recent recantation, but none has yet appeared on the record of this case. I would grant the petition for certiorari to ensure that petitioners do not go to their deaths before a court has given the requisite explanation.


text:
    No. 87-7.
    Michels et al. v. Times Mirror Cable Television of Louisville, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-34.
    Marcos et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 87-188.
    Random House, Inc., et al. v. Salinger.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of Organization of American Historians, Association of American Publishers, and Kenneth S. Davis et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-366.
    Akins v. District of Columbia et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 87-5066.
    Moreno v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 87-5154.
    Williams v. Planned Parenthood et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 86-1201.
    Vahlsing Christina Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Lucas v. Aiken, Warden, et al.,
    No. 86-6768.
   481 U. S. 1068; and

482 U. S. 931. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    October 7, 1987
    No. 87-5224.
    Tripati v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    October 9, 1987
    No. A-278 (87-5638).
    Bell v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied by an equally divided Court.


text:
    No. 87-5546.
    Franklin v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 3 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 87-5359 (A-261).
    Daugherty v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    October 13, 1987
    No. 87-137.
    Morin v. Petrarca.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. R. I. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 87-265.
    Kimberlin v. Oklahoma.
   Appeal from Ct. Crim. App. Okla. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-302.
    Aquarian Foundation et al. v. Law Offices of Edwards & Barbieri.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Wash, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-404.
    Manuel v. Hudgens et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5150.
    Baronowski v. The Unconstitutionality of Two Subsections of the Privacy Act et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. La. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. A-176 (87-5508).
    Almodovar v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-207 (87-405).
    In re Yee.
   Application for stay and other relief, addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 9, Orig.
    United States v. Louisiana et al.
   Motion of the United States for leave to file a reply to the Exceptions of Mississippi out of time granted. Exceptions to the Report of the Special Master are set for oral argument in due course. Motion of the Special Master for additional compensation and reimbursement of expenses, as set forth in the motion, is granted, and it is ordered that such costs be borne equally by the United States and Mississippi.

Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.

[For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 481 U. S. 1011.]


text:
    No. 94, Orig.
    South Carolina v. Baker, Secretary of the Treasury.
   Motion of South Carolina for divided argument to permit National Governors’ Association to present oral argument as intervenor and motion of National Governors’ Association for divided argument granted. Requests for additional time for oral argument denied. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 808.]


text:
    No. D-634.
    In re Disbarment of Bryan.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 481 U. S. 1066.]


text:
    No. D-639.
    In re Disbarment of Goldberg.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 482 U. S. 903.]


text:
    No. D-655.
    In re Disbarment of Wood.
   It is ordered that Roger A. Wood, of Toledo, Ohio, 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-656.
    In re Disbarment of Friedman.
   It is ordered that John Albert Friedman, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 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-657.
    In re Disbarment of Rosenthal.
   It is ordered that Jerome Bernard Rosenthal, of Los Angeles, Cal., 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-658.
    In re Disbarment of Robinson.
   It is ordered that James E. Robinson, of Houston, Tex., 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. 86-492.
    Boyle, Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 479 U. S. 1029.] Motion of Edwin Lees Shaw for leave to submit supplemental authority as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 86-1172.
    Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 483 U. S. 1004.] Motion of appellees for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 86-6139.
    Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 483 U. S. 1004.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 87-318.
    Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division, United Technologies Corp. v. Baldracchi.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of Jonna Lingle for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 87-5315.
    Wrenn v. Board of Directors, Whitney M. Young, Jr., Health Center, Inc., et al. Wrenn v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
    No. 87-5353.
   C. A. 2d Cir.; and

C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 3, 1987, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., 464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would deny the petitions for writs of certiorari without reaching the merits of the motions to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 87-291.
    In re Constant.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Petition for writ of common-law certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5435.
    In re Callanan; and In re Frassetto.
    No. 87-5487.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 86-1845.
    Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-1908.
    Stewart Organization, Inc., et al. v. Ricoh Corp. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-2000.
    United States v. Kozminski et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-6.
    Huddleston v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-259.
    Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-283.
    Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-1052.
    Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, Administrator of the Estates of Schlunk et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Motion of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-1824.
    Michigan v. Chesternut.
   Ct. App. Mich. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-6124.
    Bennett v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-7059.
    Patterson v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 86-1847.
    Edgar, Secretary of State of Illinois v. McVey Trucking, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1883.
    Triple “A” Machine Shop, Inc. v. Southwest Marine, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1971.
    Coleman v. White, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 86-1982.
    Howe et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.'-


text:
    No. 86-7151.
    Holt v. Merit Systems Protection Board; and Holt v. Department of the Army.
    No. 87-5050.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-29.
    Senawi v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-76.
    Lewis v. Myshak et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.