text:
    No. 90-6485.
    Green v. Whitley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 90-6489.
    Reid v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6492.
    Theus v. Deeds, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6493.
    Hovland v. Blodgett, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6494.
    Liberman v. Internal Revenue Service.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6495.
    Harrison v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6496.
    Menard v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6498.
    Lovato v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6500.
    Murray v. Cowley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6502.
    Demers v. Rhode Island.
   Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6506.
    Jones v. Gunn.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6507.
    Hirsch v. Seitz.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6510.
    Rendick v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6512.
    Abdul-Akbar v. Figliola.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6514.
    Robinson v. Hartzell et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6515.
    Stevenson v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6516.
    Castro v. New York City Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6518.
    Wolfenbarger v. Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.
   Ct. App. Kan. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6519.
    Sorenson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6520.
    Rainer v. Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6521.
    Reed v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6523.
    Baker v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6525.
    Pasco v. Morris, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6526.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6527.
    Hayes v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6528.
    Navarro v. Hargett, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6529.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6535.
    McColpin v. Davies et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6536.
    Jasinski, aka Edgar v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6543.
    Wilson v. Puckett, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6544.
    Peterson v. North Carolina Parole Commission et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6545.
    Vigil v. Tansy, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6546.
    Ashurst v. Dallman, Superintendent, Lebanon Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6547.
    Wallace v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6548.
    Irelan et al. v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6550.
    Herron v. Florida et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6551.
    Naftel v. Arizona et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6554.
    Smith v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6555.
    Robinson v. Stark County Metropolitan Housing Authority.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Stark County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6558.
    Eliga v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6560.
    Cochran v. Cowley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6561.
    Bout v. State Bar of Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6564.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6565.
    McDile v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6566.
    Medved v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6567.
    Machado-Puerta v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6568.
    Simpkins v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6569.
    Tidwell v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6570.
    Reneer et al. v. Wall et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6571.
    Demos v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6572.
    Conboy v. Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6573.
    Gurley v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6574.
    Gutierrez-Jaramillo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6576.
    Sceifers v. Zwickey et al.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6577.
    Smith v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6579.
    Ead v. Denapoli.
   App. Ct. Mass. Certiorar denied.


text:
    No. 90-6580.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6585.
    Mowbray v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 13th Dist Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6587.
    Rubins v. Diesslin, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6589.
    Asbury v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6590.
    Beachem v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-Sup. Ct. Va. rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6591.
    Melvin v. Florida et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6593.
    Cowart v. Texas.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6594.
    Ferenc v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6596.
    Smith v. Tennessee.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6597.
    Badley v. Scully, Superintendent, Greenhaven Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6598.
    Keene v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6599.
    Harrison v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6600.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6601.
    Starr v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (Workers Compensation).
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6602.
    Green et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6604.
    Mitchell v. Rollins, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6605.
    Mackey v. Michigan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6606.
    Delgado v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6611.
    Sorensen v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6612.
    Warner v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6617.
    Preston, aka Shabazz v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6618.
    Bennett, aka Richardson v. Parker, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6619.
    Aguilar v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6621.
    Currie v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6622.
    Gomes v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6623.
    Danforth v. Cohen et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6625.
    Ayers et al. v. Philadelphia Housing Authority et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6626.
    Cunningham v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6629.
    Payton v. Cowley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6630.
    Weddle v. Singleton, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6631.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6632.
    Moore v. Nagle, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6635.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6636.
    Fisher v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6637.
    Maez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6638.
    Analla v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6641.
    Wingerter v. Blackburn, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6642.
    Parrado v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6643.
    Unger v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6644.
    Flanagan v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6645.
    Drummond v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6646.
    Robinson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6648.
    Sherrills v. Corrigan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6649.
    Rucker v. Wisconsin et al.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6651.
    Esparza v. Casillas et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6653.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6654.
    Friedman v. New York City Department of Housing and Development Administration et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6659.
    Bullock v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6660.
    Allustiarte et al. v. Cooper.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6662.
    Ramirez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6665.
    Perez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6666.
    Wells v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6667.
    Stephens v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6670.
    Scott v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6671.
    Suarez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6673.
    Jones v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6675.
    Madeoy et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6676.
    Neiman v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6677.
    Aronow v. Lacroix et al.
   Ct. App. Cal, 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6678.
    Naveira v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6679.
    Minks v. Minnesota.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6684.
    Jones v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6686.
    Hawkins v. Columbia First Federal Savings & Loan Assn.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6687.
    Meadows v. Meadows.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Belmont County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6699.
    Wolfenbarger v. Wolfenbarger.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6700.
    Via v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6707.
    Castle v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6708.
    Alfano v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6709.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6716.
    Brunson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6718.
    Acosta v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6722.
    Byrne v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6723.
    Sweatt v. News World Communications, Inc.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6725.
    Buie v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6726.
    Young v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6730.
    Kennard v. Nagle, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6733.
    Oakley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6734.
    Paul v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6737.
    Murray v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6740.
    Hoffman v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6741.
    Hall v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6743.
    Muhammad v. United States Bureau of Prisons.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6745.
    Cespedes v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6750.
    Diaz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6751.
    Gant v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6752.
    Wright v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6760.
    Rodriguez-Diaz v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6763.
    Chica v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6764.
    Benel v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6771.
    Washington v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6773.
    Bryan v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6776.
    Friedman v. Board of Registration in Medicine.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6779.
    Caba v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6784.
    Pierce v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6785.
    Sassower v. Mahoney, as Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judicial Department, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6787.
    Fleming v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6804.
    Castillo et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6808.
    McMiller v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6820.
    Tharpe v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6828.
    McKnight v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6830.
    Holiday v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6836.
    Thompson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6841.
    Moser v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6887.
    Evans v. Grayson, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1973.
    No. 90-69.
    Joslyn Manufacturing Co. v. T. L. James & Co., Inc.; and Powerline Supply Co., Inc., et al. v. T. L. James & Co., Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 893 F. 2d 80.


text:
    No. 90-737.
    Zavadil et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-781.
    141st Street Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certio-rari.


text:
    No. 90-783.
    Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque et al. v. Barnhart, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-993.
    CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Rastall et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-704.
    Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Hamm, Consumer Advocate for South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 90-830.
    Bell Atlantic Corp. v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 90-867.
    Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc. v. Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of American Iron and Steel Institute et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-940.
    Leathers v. Miller.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1015.
    Davis, Warden v. Jones.
    Reported below: 906 F. 2d 552.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-994.
    Lewis & Co. et al. v. Thoeren et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondents for attorney’s fees and double costs denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1039.
    Peer International Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to dispense with Rule 29.1 listing of class members granted. Motion of National Music Publishers’ Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1044.
    Sewell Plastics, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., dba Coca-Cola USA, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 90-1050.
    Friedman v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioner for an order directing the United States to respond to petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1101.
    Leighton v. Beatrice Cos., Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 90-6155.
    No. 90-6266.
    No. 90-6434.
    No. 90-6445.
    No. 90-6468.
    No. 90-6480.
    No. 90-6663.
    No. 90-6668.
    Douglas v. California. Marshall v. California. Porter v. Florida. Silagy v. Peters, Warden. Gilliam v. Maryland. Reese v. Missouri. Ramirez v. California. Robinson v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

C. A. 7th Cir.;

Ct. App. Md.;

Sup. Ct. Mo.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.; and

Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 90-6155, 50 Cal. 3d 468, 788 P. 2d 640; No. 90-6266, 50 Cal. 3d 907, 790 P. 2d 676; No. 90-6434, 564 So. 2d 1060; No. 90-6445, 905 F. 2d 986; No. 90-6468, 320 Md. 637, 579 A. 2d 744; No. 90-6480, 795 S. W. 2d 69; No. 90-6663, 50 Cal. 3d 1158, 791 P. 2d 965; No. 90-6668, 165 Ariz. 51, 796 P. 2d 853.

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), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 90-6713.
    Jells v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

The question in this case is whether petitioner’s waiver of his right to a jury trial was knowing and voluntary when there is no evidence that petitioner was aware that his waiver also applied to his right to be sentenced by a jury that could not impose death by less than a unanimous vote and without the trial judge’s independent agreement that death was the proper sentence. Because I believe that petitioner could not be understood to have made a “knowing” decision without such critical information, I would grant the petition for certiorari.

I

The jury plays a vital role in Ohio’s capital sentencing scheme. Under the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, a felony defendant who does not waive the right to a jury trial is tried before a 12-person jury. See Ohio Rule Crim. Proc. 23(b) (1987). When the defendant is accused of a crime punishable by death, the same jury presides at both the guilt phase and the penalty phase. See State v. Mapes, 19 Ohio St. 3d 108, 116, 484 N. E. 2d 140, 147 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U. S. 1178 (1986); see also Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2929.03(C)(2)(b) (1987). Unless the jury unanimously finds beyond reasonable doubt that death is the proper sentence, the defendant must be sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after either 20 or 30 years imprisonment. See § 2929.03(D)(2); see also State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St. 3d 164, 200, 473 N. E. 2d 264, 297 (1984), cert. denied 472 U. S. 1032 (1985). Significantly, even if the jury unanimously recommends the death penalty, the trial court also must independently find beyond reasonable doubt that death is the correct sentence before the defendant may be sentenced to death. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2929.03(D)(2)-(3) (1987); see also State v. Jenkins, supra, at 200-201, 473 N. E. 2d, at 297.

Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in an Ohio state court. Because petitioner waived his right to a jury trial, a three-judge panel determined both his guilt and his sentence. The form on which petitioner executed his waiver mirrored the language of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2945.05 (1987):

“T, REGINALD JELLS, the defendant in the above cause, hereby voluntarily waive and relinquish my right to a trial by jury, and elect to be tried by three judges of the court in which said cause may be pending. I fully understand that under the laws of this State, I have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.’” 53 Ohio St. 3d 22, 25, 559 N. E. 2d 464, 468 (1990).

Petitioner signed the statement, as did his two witnessing attorneys. Ibid. The trial court also conducted a hearing to determine whether petitioner signed the form voluntarily:

“ ‘THE COURT: Reginald, is that your signature?
“‘THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is, sir.
‘“THE COURT: You did this of your own free will?
“‘THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did.
“ ‘THE COURT: Nobody forced you to do this?
“‘THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
“‘THE COURT: All right.
“‘MR. HUBBARD [defense counsel]: I have witnessed his signature, your Honor.
“‘THE COURT: This will be made part of the record.’”
Ibid.

Petitioner maintains that his waiver was not constitutionally sufficient because at no point did the trial judge advise him that by waiving his jury trial right he also waived jury sentencing. The Ohio Supreme Court did not address the sufficiency of petitioner’s waiver under federal constitutional standards even though it acknowledged that petitioner had claimed his waiver was “constitutionally insufficient.” See id., at 24, 559 N. E. 2d, at 467. The court did hold, however, that under Ohio law the trial court is not required to determine whether a defendant “is fully apprised of the right to a jury trial,” id., at 25-26, 559 N. E. 2d, at 468, and that Ohio law is “satisfied by a written waiver, signed by the defendant, filed with the court, and made in open court, after arraignment and opportunity to consult with counsel,” id., at 26, 559 N. E. 2d, at 468. For these reasons, the court determined that the trial court’s failure specifically to advise petitioner of the effect of his waiver on sentencing gave rise to “no error, plain or otherwise.” Ibid.

I cannot accept the Ohio court’s conclusion. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by jury. While this right is subject to waiver, “we ‘do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights,’ ” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938) (citation omitted), and courts are therefore obliged to establish that any such waivers are made knowingly and voluntarily, id., at 464-465. It is generally accepted that waivers of certain constitutional rights — such as a waiver through a guilty plea of the right to trial or a waiver of the right to counsel — should be made in open court. See e. g., Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 748 (1970) (right to trial); Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, at 465 (right to counsel). Because these rights are critical in protecting a defendant’s life and liberty, trial courts must apprise the defendant of the “relevant circumstances and likely consequences,” Brady v. United States, supra, at 748 (emphasis added), to determine whether the defendant’s waiver is made freely and intelligently.

Some courts, believing that the Constitution does not compel an inquiry by the trial judge when a defendant purports to waive his right to a jury trial, have nevertheless recognized that “trial courts should conduct colloquies with the defendant . . . [and] make sure that [the] defendant knows what the right guarantees before waiving it.” See United States v. Cochran, 770 F. 2d 850, 852 (CA9 1985) (citing cases). In my view, when a capital defendant’s waiver of his jury trial right includes a waiver of his right to jury sentencing, this type of a searching inquiry by the trial judge into the knowing and voluntary nature of the waiver is not only sound practice but is constitutionally compelled.

The decision to waive the right to jury sentencing may deprive a capital defendant of potentially life-saving advantages. As we have recognized, the jury operates as an essential bulwark to “prevent oppression by the Government.” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 155 (1968). “‘[0]ne of the most important functions any jury can perform in making ... a selection [between life imprisonment and death for a defendant convicted in a capital case] is to maintain a link between contemporary community values and the penal system.'” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 181 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.), quoting Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 519, n. 15 (1968). Indeed, it has been argued that juries are less inclined to sentence a defendant to death than are judges. See Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 488, n. 34 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), citing H. Zeisel, Some Data on Juror Attitudes Towards Capital Punishment 37-50 (1968).

Under Ohio law, the consequences of a capital defendant’s waiver are particularly far reaching. As noted, had petitioner not waived his jury trial right in favor of the three-judge panel, his life would have been spared unless all 12 jurors could have agreed that death was the proper sentence, and unless the trial judge then independently determined that the jury reached the correct result. The practical effect of petitioner’s waiver, then, was to forfeit the right to have 10 additional decisionmakers review his punishment — each of whom would have had the power to veto his death sentence and some of whom might well have been less likely to vote for the death sentence than the three judges on the panel.

Given the consequences of petitioner’s decision, the trial court’s inquiry, which focused only upon whether petitioner signed the boilerplate waiver form voluntarily, was constitutionally inadequate. The court did not determine whether petitioner fully understood his entitlement to a jury trial — that is, whether he had signed the waiver “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences” of his act. See Brady v. United States, supra, at 748. Nor did the waiver itself cure this defect, since it did no more than inform petitioner of his “ ‘constitutional right to a trial by jury.’” 53 Ohio St. 3d, at 25, 559 N. E. 2d, at 468. It did not explain to him that he also was waiving his right to be sentenced by a jury or that, in the absence of a waiver, he could be sentenced to death only upon the jury’s unanimous vote and the independent approval of the trial judge.

It is no answer to assume, as did the Ohio Supreme Court, that petitioner’s “opportunity to consult with counsel,” id., at 26, 559 N. E. 2d, at 468, was an adequate substitute for a full inquiry in open court. The Ohio Supreme Court made no effort to ascertain whether counsel had even conferred with petitioner at all, or, if they did confer, what petitioner was told. As I have noted before, courts cannot confidently assume that defense counsel have apprised a capital defendant of the considerations relevant to a decision to waive his right to a jury.

“A presumption that defendant’s counsel will always inform him of the relevant factors in a decision to waive constitutional rights amounts to a rule that all waivers made after the defendant has retained counsel necessarily will be considered voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Such a rule offends common sense and impermissibly strips a defendant of constitutional protections long recognized by this Court.” Robertson v. California, 493 U. S. 879, 881 (1989) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

Such casual presumptions not only have no place in matters of life and death but also contravene “[t]he requirement that the prosecution spread on the record the prerequisites of a valid waiver.” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 242 (1969) (emphasis added). When a defendant purports to waive a fundamental constitutional right, “it is the State that has the burden of establishing a valid waiver.” Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625, 633 (1986). Because the State clearly has not met that burden in this case, I would grant the petition for certiorari.

II

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, supra, at 231 (Marshall, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certio-rari and vacate petitioner’s death sentence even if I did not believe this case otherwise merited review.

      Under Ohio law, a defendant who is accused of a crime punishable by death and who waives his right to a jury trial is tried and sentenced by a three-judge panel. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2929.03(C)(2)(a), 2945.06 (1987). Ohio’s capital sentencing statute does not contain any provision whereby a capital defendant can waive his right to a jury trial but nonetheless elect to be sentenced by a jury.

       Because the Ohio Supreme Court did not “actually . . . rel[y]” on a procedural bar for disposing of petitioner’s federal claim, see Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320, 327 (1985), our jurisdiction is secure. Respondent does not contend that petitioner’s federal claim is not properly before us.


text:
    No. 89-1944.
    No. 89-7787.
    Ohio v. Huertas, Villegas v. California, Hughes v. United States, Taber, dba Tabers Grass Farm v. Pledger, Director, Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, Banks v. Sterling Merchandise, Inc., et al., Johnson et al. v. United States, Harris v. Cato et al., Gleason v. Stewart, Judge, Harris County, Texas District Court, et al., Mattson v. California, Endres v. Armontrout et al., Rodriguez-Diaz v. Florida et al., Cassidy v. Rose, Klein & Marias et al., Sowell v. Maloney, Deputy Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Correction, In re Sindram, Kinder v. Sandberg et al., Canterbury v. Kalisz, Desmond v. Department of Defense, Moore v. Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services et al., Martin v. Townsend et al., Young v. Johnson, Warden, Ganey v. Wilson et al.,
   ante, p. 336;

ante, p. 966;

No. 90-90.

No. 90-484.

No. 90-532.

No. 90-5627.

No. 90-5931.

No. 90-5938.

No. 90-5941.

No. 90-5981.

No. 90-5991.

No. 90-6020.

No. 90-6031.

No. 90-6051.

No. 90-6054.

No. 90-6116.

No. 90-6118.

No. 90-6171.

No. 90-6230.

No. 90-6280.

No. 90-6313.

ante, p. 980;

ante, p. 967;

ante, p. 982;

ante, p. 1029;

ante, p. 1030;

ante, p. 1001;

ante, p. 1017;

ante, p. 1014;

ante, p. 1015;

ante, p. 1002;

ante, p. 1002;

ante, p. 177;

ante, p. 1002;

ante, p. 1033;

ante, p. 1070;

ante, p. 1034;

ante, p. 1036;

ante, p. 1051; and

ante, p. 1071. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 89-6872.
    Daly v. United States,
   496 U. S. 927. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Sou-ter took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 90-543.
    Giannini v. Real, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California, et al.,
   ante, p. 1012. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of petition for rehearing denied. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    February 25, 1991
    No. 89-1018.
    Ayuda, Inc., et al. v. Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., ante, p. 479.


text:
    No. 90-602.
    Yoash et al. v. McLean Contracting Co., Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander, ante, p. 337.


text:
    No. 87-7065.
    Podborny v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Motion to substitute party in place of petitioner, deceased, denied. It appearing that petitioner died October 15, 1990, certiorari dismissed.


text:
    No. D-922.
    In re Disbarment of Weiss.
    [For earlier order herein, see 497 U. S. 1046.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-927.
    In re Disbarment of Isaacson.
    [For earlier order herein, see 497 U. S. 1055.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-928.
    In re Disbarment of Keady.
    [For earlier order herein, see 497 U. S. 1056.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-946.
    In re Disbarment of Richardson.
    [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 918.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-969.
    In re Disbarment of Finkelstein.
   It is ordered that Joseph J. Finkelstein, of Miami, 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-970.
    In re Disbarment of Maxwell.
   It is ordered that David B. Maxwell, of Stafford, 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. D-971.
    In re Disbarment of Crane.
   It is ordered that Elaine Roemisch Crane, of Willoughby Hills, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 109,
    Orig.
    Oklahoma et al. v. New Mexico.
    [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 1078.]
   Motion of Oklahoma for divided argument on behalf of plaintiffs granted. Motion of New Mexico that oral argument be set for the March calendar rather than the April calendar denied.


text:
    No. 90-50.
    Gregory et al., Judges v. Ashcroft, Governor of Missouri.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 979.] Motion of Missouri Bar for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 90-615.
    Peretz v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1066.] Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted.


text:
    No. 90-992.
    Nevada et al. v. Watkins, Secretary of Energy, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7020.
    In re Connolly.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 90-6469.
    No. 90-6490.
    No. 90-6627.
    No. 90-6690.
    In re Anderson; In re Visser; In re Visser; and In re Wightman.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 90-681.
    Hafer v. Melo et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari granted.


text:
    No. 90-857.
    Doggett v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-985.
    Bray et al. v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-584.
    Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 3 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 90-1074.
    Estelle, Warden v. McGuire.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-703.
    Stevens v. Oregon et al.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-787.
    Farr v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-845.
    MacDonald v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-854.
    No. 90-1079.
    Diesen v. Hessburg et al.; and Hessburg et al. v. Diesen.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 455 N. W. 2d 446.


text:
    No. 90-862.
    Wainwright v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-866.
    Kasal et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Liquidator of Citizens State Bank of Gibbon.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-875.
    No. 90-1070.
    Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Garay; and Garay v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 904 F. 2d 1527.


text:
    No. 90-885.
    Mundi v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-887.
    Ketchel et al. v. Bainbridge Township et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-907.
    Vastola et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-917.
    Laughlin, Trustee v. Internal Revenue Service.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-947.
    Eide v. Sarasota County, Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-962.
    Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-991.
    Railway Labor Executives’ Assn. et al. v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-997.
    Orsburn v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1000.
    Landa v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1040.
    Pena et al. v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1041.
    DiLucia et al. v. Town Board of Town of Westford, New York, et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1042.
    Groves et al. v. Hostler.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1045.
    Capitol News Agency Co., Inc., et al. v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1047.
    National Amusements, Inc. v. City of Springdale, Ohio, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1065.
    Ream v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1067.
    Pavela v. Malone, Independent Executor of the Estate of Malone.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1077.
    Stephenson v. DeKalb County, Indiana Department of Public Welfare.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1084.
    Mayercheck v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1095.
    Armstrong et al. v. Marathon Oil Co.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hancock County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1113.
    Anderson v. Chrysler Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1125.
    Dunlap v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1175.
    Abdorabehe et al. v. Michigan Department of Commerce et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1178.
    Oyola v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1190.
    Vaughan v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5806.
    Parker v. Parsons, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6018.
    Davis v. Rone, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6128.
    Word v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6130.
    Rankin v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6190.
    Henderson v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6219.
    Brown v. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6238.
    Toffler v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6244.
    Lamb v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6363.
    Louis v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6405.
    Ross v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6429.
    Romo et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6464.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6474.
    Roberts v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6475.
    San Filippo v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6487.
    Posey v. United States Army.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6509.
    Rhodes v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6530.
    Muina v. El Guajiro Gang et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6533.
    Partout v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6563.
    Chinagorom v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6584.
    Fletcher v. Ugast, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6680.
    Oswald v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6689.
    Oswald v. Taylor et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6695.
    Tyree v. Vose, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Correction.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6701.
    Upshaw v. Morris et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6703.
    Christopher P., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, Norma P., et al. v. Marcus et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6706.
    Carey v. Petsock et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6715.
    Laskaris v. Segel et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6717.
    Gallagher v. Ohio et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6731.
    Kraft v. Gates et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6735.
    Demos v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6744.
    Maida v. Massachusetts et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6746.
    Reed v. Yarbrough et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6747.
    Robbins v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6777.
    Gard v. Chairman, National Credit Union Administration, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6794.
    Eder v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir.. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6797.
    Thompson v. Mississippi.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6801.
    Arigbede v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6805.
    Amsler v. Smith-Lustig Paper Box Mfg. Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6809.
    Otero v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6810.
    Kennedy v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6823.
    Frasica-Valencia v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6827.
    Naboyen v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6831.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6843.
    Ray v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6845.
    Spaulding v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6846.
    Castellanos v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6851.
    Pritchett v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6853.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6854.
    Sanchez-Melchor v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6856.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6858.
    Castaneda v. Henman, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6862.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6864.
    Hayes v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6869.
    Srisookko v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6870.
    Davies v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6871.
    Agomo v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6872.
    Tamayo-Cariballo v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6879.
    Schlosser v. Washington et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6881.
    Smith et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6884.
    Clemons v. Arvonio.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6885.
    Alvarez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6889.
    McClain v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6892.
    Keffeler v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6894.
    Mayes et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6897.
    Giongo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6903.
    Sargent v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6905.
    Quintero-Ruiz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6910.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6911.
    Nunez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6915.
    Ceballos Carranza v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6923.
    Frank v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6928.
    Davidson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6932.
    Vetterneck v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6941.
    Wright v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-383.
    Whitfield et al. v. Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-792.
    Leslie Salt Co. et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-873.
    Born v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-955.
    Almont Shipping Co., Inc. v. Ruffin et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of Preston Trucking Co. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1089.
    Bryant et al. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist. Motion of petitioners to correct error in petition granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 90-5672.
    Bressman et al. v. Farrier et al. Young v. Kenny et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir.; and

No. 90-5854.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below. No. 90-5672, 900 F. 2d 1305; No. 90-5854, 907 F. 2d 874.

Justice White,

with whom Justice O’Connor joins,

dissenting.

These petitions raise the questions whether the exhaustion requirement of 28 U. S. C. § 2254 applies when state prisoners, in a suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, challenge the duration or conditions of their confinement but seek only damages or declaratory relief. The Eighth Circuit held here that exhaustion is required for § 1983 actions which include challenges to the conditions, as well as to the length or duration, of confinement. 900 F. 2d 1305, 1308 (1990). See also Offet v. Solem, 823 F. 2d 1256 (CA8 1987). The Seventh Circuit has adopted the contrary position. See Viens v. Daniels, 871 F. 2d 1328, 1333-1334 (1989). The Ninth Circuit held here that exhaustion is required for § 1983 actions seeking damages, so long as the requested relief requires as its predicate a determination that a prisoner’s sentence is invalid or unconstitutionally long. 907 F. 2d 874, 876 (1990). Although no Court of Appeals has held to the contrary, several have recognized the apparent tension between this position and the decisions of this Court in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475 (1973), and Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 (1974). See, e. g., 907 F. 2d, at 877; Viens, supra, at 1333; Gwin v. Snow, 870 F. 2d 616, 623 (CA11 1989).

Because of the confusion and divergence of opinion these issues have generated in the Courts of Appeals, and the fact that this Court has not ruled definitively upon the issues presented, I would grant certiorari in these two cases.


text:
    No. 90-6259.
    No. 90-6578.
    No. 90-6639.
    No. 90-6640.
    No. 90-6682.
    No. 90-6711.
    No. 90-6739.
    Victor v. Nebraska. Washington v. Arizona. Davis v. Alabama. Caldwell v. Tennessee. Thomas v. Illinois. Landrum v. Ohio. Williams v. Armontrout, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Neb.;

Sup. Ct. Ariz.;

Sup. Ct. Ala.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

Sup. Ct. Ill.;

Sup. Ct. Ohio; and

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 90-6259, 235 Neb. 770, 457 N. W. 2d 431; No. 90-6578, 165 Ariz. 51, 796 P. 2d 853; No. 90-6639, 554 So. 2d 1111; No. 90-6682, 137 Ill. 2d 500, 561 N. E. 2d 57; No. 90-6711, 53 Ohio St. 3d 107, 559 N. E. 2d 710; No. 90-6739, 912 F. 2d 924.

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), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 90-6795.
    Orsini v. Wallace, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to amend petition for writ of certio-rari granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7187 (A-645).
    Buxton v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

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), I 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:
    No. 90-7203 (A-654).
    Buxton v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would grant the application for stay of execution.

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), I 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:
    No. 90-271.
    Aquilina v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, National Fabricators, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, NAACP, Detroit Branch, et al. v. Detroit Police Officers Assn. et al., Crouch v. American National Bank et al., Vaughan v. Rock Church, Inc., Baxter v. Kemp, Warden, Bienville v. United States, In re Bright,
   ante, p. 1040;

No. 90-472.

No. 90-569.

No. 90-5886.

No. 90-6024.

No. 90-6044.

No. 90-6173.

No. 90-6608.

ante, p. 1024;

ante, p. 983;

ante, p. 1030;

ante, p. 1031;

ante, p. 1041;

ante, p. 1049; and

ante, p. 1065. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 90-5278.
    Gordon v. Agnos et al.,
   ante, p. 869. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    February 27, 1991
    No. 87-1821.
    Modjeski & Masters v. Carter et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 487 U. S. 1217.] Appeal dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. 90-394.
    Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, et al. v. Jeffers et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Ark. dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. 87-1821.
    Modjeski & Masters v. Carter et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 487 U. S. 1217.] In light of the dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court, supra, the motion of appellant to vacate the stay of execution of judgment entered May 2, 1988 [485 U. S. 1031], is granted, and the stay is hereby vacated.


text:
    February 28, 1991
    No. A-656 (90-7199).
    Madden v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the issuance of the mandate of this Court.


author: Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

text:
    MADDEN v. TEXAS
    No. A-626.
    Decided February 20, 1991

      Together with No. A-627, DeBlanc v. Texas, No. A-628, Goodwin v. Texas, and No. A-635, Hammond v. Texas, also on applications for extension of time.

   Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

In each of these four cases, a lawyer affiliated with the Texas Resource Center, on behalf of an applicant convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, has requested a 60-day extension of time in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

In No. A-626, the Texas court issued an opinion affirming the conviction and sentence of Robert Madden on September 12, 1990, and denied a petition for rehearing on November 28, 1990. The stated reason for the present extension request is that Madden’s appellate counsel “has never before prepared a certiorari petition on a capital case” and requires the assistance of the Resource Center “to assist him and provide him with sufficient guidance to ensure that the important constitutional issues in [the] case are properly researched and presented to this Court.” Madden is scheduled to be executed on February 28, 1991.

In No. A-627, the Texas court issued an opinion affirming the conviction and sentence of David Wayne DeBlanc on October 24,1990, and denied a petition for rehearing on November 28, 1990. The stated reason for the present extension request is that “[f ]ollowing the affirmance of [applicant’s] conviction and sentence on appeal, Eden E. Harrington of the Texas Resource Center learned that [applicant’s] appellate counsel, Craig Washington, would no longer represent Mr. DeBlanc because Mr. Washington is now a member of the United States Congress. The Texas Resource Center has tried to locate new volunteer counsel for [applicant] since November, 1990, but no new counsel has yet been located.” DeBlanc’s execution has not yet been scheduled.

In No. A-628, the Texas court issued an opinion affirming the conviction and sentence of Alvin Urial Goodwin on October 24, 1990, and denied a petition for rehearing on November 28, 1990. The stated reason for the present extension request is that “[f ]ollowing the affirmance of [applicant’s] conviction and sentence on appeal, [applicant’s] appellate counsel, John D. McDonald, notified Eden E. Harrington of the Texas Resource Center that he could no longer represent Mr. Goodwin due to conflicting employment. The Texas Resource Center has tried to locate new volunteer counsel for [applicant] since learning of Mr. McDonald’s withdrawal, but no new counsel has yet been located.” Goodwin’s execution has not yet been scheduled.

In No. A-635, the Texas court issued an opinion affirming the conviction and sentence of Karl Hammond on October 31, 1990, and denied a petition for rehearing on November 28, 1990. The stated reason for the present extension request is that “[i]n November, 1990 the Texas Resource Center received notice that [applicant’s] appellate attorney, David Weiner, was withdrawing from Mr. Hammond’s case and could not prepare his petition for certiorari. Since that time, the Texas Resource Center has attempted to recruit new counsel for Mr. Hammond but has been unsuccessful. Therefore, undersigned counsel intends to prepare a petition for writ of certiorari on [applicant’s] behalf and the Texas Resource Center will continue to try to locate new counsel to assist petitioner with his future appeals. Undersigned counsel, however, cannot prepare the petition for writ of certio-rari . . . because of his father’s recent death.” Hammond’s execution has not yet been scheduled.

The law states that “[t]he time for appeal or application for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of a State court in a criminal case shall be as prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court.” 28 U. S. C. § 2101(d). Those rules provide that “[a] petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort . . . shall be deemed in time when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after the entry of the judgment,” Rule 13.1. This period may be extended by a Justice of this Court “for good cause shown” for a period not to exceed 60 days, Rule 13.2, but an application for such an extension “is not favored,” Rule*13.6. Any such application “must be submitted at least 10 days before the specified final filing date,” Rule 30.2; applications “received less than 10 days before the final filing date” will not be granted “except in the most extraordinary circumstances,” ibid, (emphasis added).

The 90-day period for filing a petition for a writ of certio-rari in each of these cases expires on February 26, 1991. Each of the present extension applications was sent via overnight courier on February 15, 1991 (the Friday preceding a 3-day holiday weekend), and received by the police officer on duty on Saturday, February 16, the last possible day under the 10-day rule.

In my view, none of these applications, as an original matter, would meet the standard of “good cause shown” for the granting of an extension. In No. A-626, the desire of Madden’s appellate counsel for the assistance of the Texas Resource Center is entirely unremarkable; all petitioners can honestly claim that they would benefit from additional advice and consultation. Nor does the excuse put forward in the other three cases, namely, withdrawal of appellate counsel, automatically justify an extension of time. There is no indication in any of them that the withdrawal was a reasonably unforeseeable occurrence. Indeed, in DeBlanc’s case, No. A-627, the factor requiring withdrawal (membership in the United States Congress) was of such a nature that it must have been anticipated before November 28, the date rehearing was denied. The application in Hammond’s case, No. A-635, sets forth as additional justification the death of counsel’s father — which would in some circumstances qualify as “good cause shown.” The counsel in question, however, is not one who has been working diligently on the petition and has been prevented by the death from completing his work, but rather an attorney affiliated with the Resource Center who now, because no other counsel has been found since the unexplained withdrawal of appellate counsel, “intends to prepare” applicant’s petition. There is no indication why some other attorney at the Resource Center could not have undertaken this last-minute task, nor why the task has been left to the last minute.

All of these are capital cases. That class of case has not, however, been made a generic exception to our 90-day time limit, and I do not think I have authority to create such an exception through the power conferred upon me to grant case-by-case extensions for “good cause shown.” As I have stated above, moreover, I do not consider that the withdrawal of appellate counsel automatically constitutes “good cause,” without regard to its basis or predictability. There is even greater need to reject such an automatic rule in capital cases than there is elsewhere, since no lawyer should be burdened with the knowledge that, if he were only to withdraw from the case, his client’s appeal could be lengthened and the execution of sentence, in all likelihood, deferred.

I became Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit at the beginning of the current Term. Because I have not previously had an opportunity in this capacity to set forth my views on application of the “good cause” standard of Rule 13.2; because it is possible that those views are more restrictive of extensions than what the Fifth Circuit bar has been accustomed to; and because these are capital cases; I find good cause to grant 30-day extensions in Nos. A-627, A-628, and A-635. I shall not grant extensions in similar circumstances again. I find inadequate cause to extend the filing period in No. A-626. In that case, Madden’s execution date has been set for February 28, 1991, two days after the end of the regular 90-day filing period. Extending the period in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to a point after an established execution date is either futile or will disrupt the State’s orderly administration of justice. I do not consider it appropriate for me to take such action as a Circuit Justice.

It is so ordered.


text:
    MISSISSIPPI v. TURNER
    No. A-661.
    Decided March 2, 1991
   Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

In this case, the State of Mississippi has requested a 30-day extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The State submits that the extension is required due to “state budgetary cuts,” which have resulted in a reduction in appellate staff.

The law states that the “time for appeal or application for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of a State court in a criminal case shall be as prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court.” 28 U. S. C. §2101(d). Those Rules provide that “[a] petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort . . . shall be deemed in time when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after the entry of judgment,” Rule 13.1. This period may be extended by a Justice of this Court “for good cause shown” for a period not to exceed 60 days, Rule 13.2, but an application for such an extension “is not favored,” Rule 13.6.

In my view, counsel’s overextended caseload is not “good cause shown” unless it is the result of events unforeseen and uncontrollable by both counsel and client. That is not so here. Like any other litigant, the State of Mississippi must choose between hiring more attorneys and taking fewer appeals. Its budget allocations cannot, and I am sure were not expected to, alter this Court’s filing requirements.

The application is denied.

It is so ordered.