text:
    No. 88-192.
    No. 88-325.
    McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation of Florida, et al. American Trucking Assns., Inc., et al. v. Smith, Director, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 954]; and

Sup. Ct. Ark. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 954.] Motion of respondents for divided argument granted. Request for additional time for oral argument denied. Motion of petitioners for divided argument granted. Request for additional time for oral argument denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 88-305.
    South Carolina v. Gathers.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 888.] Motions of SOLACE et al. and Barbara Babcock et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-389.
    Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 488 U. S. 907.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 88-411.
    Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al. v. Giarratano et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 923.] Motions of American Civil Liberties Union, National Legal Aid & Defender Association et al., and Maryland State Bar Association et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-420.
    Jones, Superintendent, Missouri Training Center for Men at Moberly v. Thomas.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 1003.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Springfield Baldwin, Esq., of Shrewsburg, Mo., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 88-429.
    No. 88-494.
    Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice et al.; and Washington Legal Foundation v. United States Department of Justice et al.
   D. C. D. C. [Probable.jurisdiction noted, 488 U. S. 979.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for divided argument denied. Motion of appellants for divided argument granted.

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


text:
    No. 88-449.
    No. 88-513.
    Healy et al. v. The Beer Institute et al.; and Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Connecticut, Inc. v. The Beer Institute et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 488 U. S. 954.] Motion of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-454.
    United States v. Monsanto.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 941.] Motion of Committee on Criminal Advocacy et al. for leave to participate in oral argument ás amici curiae and for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 88-515.
    No. 88-525.
    Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.; and Federal Communications Commission et al. v. Sable Communications of California, Inc.
   D. C. C. D. Cal. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 488 U. S. 1003.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 88-556.
    Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc., et al. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 980.] Motions of Metromedia, Inc., and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-681.
    California State Board of Equalization v. Sierra Summit, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 992.] Motion of National Governors’ Association et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-927.
    Keystone Shipping Co. v. New England Energy, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of respondents to expedite consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1207.
    G. K. C. Michigan Theatres, Inc., et al. v. National Amusements, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 88-5853.
    Corch v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 14, 1989, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition 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 petition for writ of certiorari without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 88-6060.
    No. 88-6177.
    Tucker v. Prudential Insurance Co. Gardner v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir.; and

C. A. 7th Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until March 14, 1989, 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, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens,

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. 88-6131.
    No. 88-6263.
    Wrenn v. United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Wrenn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir.; and

C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 14, 1989, 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, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Bmvn 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. 88-6181.
    In re Harrison.
   Ct. App. Ga. Petition for writ ¡of common-law certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5958.
    No. 88-5988.
    No. 88-6043.
    No. 88-6051.
    No. 88-6234.
    In re Simanonok; In re Martin; In re Mulazim; In re Barnett; and In re Gay.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 88-971.
    No. 88-6072.
    No. 88-6128.
    No. 88-6227.
    In re Dolenz; In re Youngs; In re Jones; and In re Theodoropoulos.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 88-952.
    United States v. Sperry Corp. et al.
   Appeal from C. A. Fed. Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 88-1048.
    Quinn et al. v. Millsap et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Mo. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 88-124.
    Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-791.
    Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, a Division of Cadence Industries Corp., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-1083.
    John Doe Agency et al. v. John Doe Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-1979.
    Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Schwalb et al.; and Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Goode.
    No. 88-127.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: No. 87-1979, 235 Va. 27, 365 S. E. 2d 742.


text:
    No. 88-512.
    Michigan v. Harvey.
   Ct. App. Mich. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-840.
    Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether in the absence of a direct violation of a federal statute, an allegation that a state statute is preempted by a federal statute is cognizable under 42 U. S. C. § 1983?”


text:
    No. 88-5909.
    McKoy v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-6075.
    James v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certio-rari granted.


text:
    No. 88-541.
    North Carolina v. Tarantino.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-614.
    9/1 Kg Containers, More or Less, of an Article of Drug for Veterinary Use et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-687.
    Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Rees et al.
   C. A.

D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-701.
    International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 19 v. Soo Line Railroad Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-753.
    Universal Cooperatives, Inc. v. FCX, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-768.
    Franco v. Department of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-778.
    World Color Press, Inc. v. Dole, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-792.
    Miller v. Person et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-795.
    Judge et al. v. United States Department of Agriculture.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-803.
    Anthony v. Newman, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-807.
    Childs et al. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-830.
    Quality Inn South et al. v. Patel.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-839.
    Arruza v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-846.
    Sparks v. Character and Fitness Committee of Kentucky et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-848.
    American Mining Congress et al. v. Environmental Defense Fund et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-851.
    Pidcock v. Oregon.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-853.
    BMT Commodity Corp. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-857.
    Roszkos et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-858.
    Wells, Administratrix of the Estate of Sanderlin, et al. v. Walker et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-865.
    Sun Exploration & Production Co. et al. v. Lujan, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-866.
    No. 88-1078.
    Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Pratt; and Pratt v. Quantum Chemical Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 853 F. 2d 1329.


text:
    No. 88-873.
    Shroeder v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-875.
    Taylor v. Taylor.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-878.
    Roberts v. Hardin.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-879.
    Lowen v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-880.
    Trump et al. v. Field.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-886.
    Taylor Made Office Systems, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-887.
    Cuevas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-889.
    Millers National Insurance Co. et al. v. Axel’s Express, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-891.
    Holeman v. Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency for the National Flood Insurance Program.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-913.
    California v. Allison.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-916.
    Mitchell et al. v. Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-921.
    Netsky, Executor of the Estate of Netsky v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-922.
    Heily v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-923.
    Howell v. Homecraft Land Development, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-925.
    Harris et al. v. Israelite Bible Class, Inc.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-933.
    Hemmert Shipping Corp. et al. v. Furness Withy (Chartering) Panama, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-935.
    Sckolnick v. Wells.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-936.
    Schwarz v. City of Warwick, Rhode Island, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-939.
    Leon, Personal Representative of the Estate of Morales v. Avino, County Manager of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-942.
    LaBoure Associates Personnel Services, Inc. v. Whitmire et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-943.
    Barrow v. Walker, Tax Collector, Columbia County, Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-945.
    Ervin v. County of Los Angeles.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-946.
    Aplin v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-954.
    Laczay et ux. v. Ross Adhesives, a Division of Conros Corp., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-956.
    LSLJ Partnership v. Frito-Lay, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-957.
    Toussaint v. Laurens County Health Care System et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-961.
    Schmidt v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-962.
    Varma et al. v. Bloustein et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-964.
    Howes v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-965.
    Ewell et al. v. Thompson, Commissioner of Conservation and Assistant Secretary, Office of Conservation of Louisiana, et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-970.
    Roselin v. Arain.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-972.
    Maisonet v. Connecticut.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-976.
    Landano v. Rafferty, Superintendent, Rahway State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-981.
    Lawson et ux., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, Lawson et al. v. Diamond M Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-983.
    Lacey v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-985.
    Technograph Liquidating Trust v. General Motors Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-987.
    Hesse v. Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211, Cook County, Illinois, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-991.
    U. S. Roofing Corp. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-993.
    Linkous v. Linkous.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-997.
    Higgins v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1001.
    Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Conoco, Inc.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1002.
    Broida v. Newbold.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1004.
    Cambridge Properties, Inc. v. Baton Rouge Production Credit Assn.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1005.
    Haynes v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1006.
    Jaynes v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1007.
    Linn v. Pierce, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1010.
    Landahl, Brown & Weed Associates, Inc. v. Longardner & Associates, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1014.
    Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, Division of Transportation, Communications International Union v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1015.
    Cully v. Grace Hospital.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1016.
    Chambers v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1018.
    Little et al. v. Lessler.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1020.
    W. SCHLAFHORST & CO. et al. v. SCHUBERT & Salzer Maschinenfabrik Aktiengesellschaft.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1022.
    Henrico County Public Schools et al. v. Spielberg, a Minor by His Parents, Spielberg et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1023.
    United States v. Christey et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1024.
    Pierson v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1025.
    Larkins et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1028.
    Scanlon v. Schrinar, Commissioner of Public Lands of Wyoming, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1030.
    Brown v. Arkansas.
   Ct. App. Ark. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1032.
    Jutkofsky v. Maestri et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1033.
    Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Gardner et al.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1040.
    Mancinone v. Connecticut.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1041.
    Huntzinger v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1045.
    Williams v. Attorney General of Pennsylvania.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1046.
    Torres et al. v. Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1047.
    Bechtel Construction, Inc. v. Laborers District Council et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1050.
    No. 88-1054.
    Applegate et vir v. California et al.; and California v. Freeman.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: 46 Cal. 3d 419, 758 P. 2d 1128.


text:
    No. 88-1051.
    Jacks v. Duckworth, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1057.
    NEC America, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1058.
    No. 88-1080.
    Treeby et al. v. Gorman et al.; and Swaggart et al. v. Adler, Trustee in Bankruptcy, et al.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. . Certiorari denied. Reported below: 524 So. 2d 915.


text:
    No. 88-1060.
    Powers v. Board of County Commissioners of Kingman County, Kansas, et al.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1061.
    Hammond v. Auburn University et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1065.
    Patterson v. Atlanta Bar Assn. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1073.
    Sierra v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1077.
    Alcan Aluminio do Brasil, S. A., et al. v. Benitez-Allende et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1082.
    Patel et al. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1084.
    Fischer v. Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1086.
    Albuquerque A. R. T. Co. v. Mirage Editions, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1087.
    Henao-Ospina et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1090.
    Tresize et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1091.
    Powell v. Nigro et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1092.
    Maryland Casualty Co. v. Lozano.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1093.
    Hill v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1096.
    Adams v. Arkansas.
   Ct. App. Ark. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1102.
    Westminster Management Corp. et al. v. Mitchell, Director of Finance, City of New Orleans, et al.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1104.
    Pennsylvania v. Giannini et al.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1106.
    Aiello et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1107.
    Brown v. City of Fort Lauderdale et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1110.
    Hardy et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1113.
    Mikulec Industries, Inc. v. ICI Americas, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1117.
    Oswald v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1118.
    Lutz et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1120.
    Williams et ux. v. Tucson Unified School District No. 1 of Pima County, Arizona, et al.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1123.
    Landers Seed Co., Inc. v. Champaign National Bank.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1126.
    Ryan v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1127.
    Uberoi v. University of Colorado et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1133.
    Oster v. Newman, Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1141.
    Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia et al. v. D. C. Transit System, Inc.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1152.
    Income Properties, Inc., et al. v. Lunsford et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1156.
    Blanco v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1158.
    Perez et al. v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1162.
    Moore v. City of Richmond et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1164.
    Spectron Broadcasting Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1167.
    Daniel Construction Co., a Division of Daniel International Corp. v. Local 257, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1171.
    Graham v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1189.
    Ketchum v. Administrator, Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5188.
    Bennett v. Corroon & Black Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5438.
    Terrebonne v. Butler, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5573.
    Conn v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5715.
    Gates v. Vasquez, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5754.
    Ronning v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5802.
    Hawley et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5825.
    Stokes v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5857.
    Highfill v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5858.
    Karlin v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5869.
    No. 88-6129.
    Brewer v. United States; and Ferguson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 853 F. 2d 1319.


text:
    No. 88-5894.
    Davis v. Gibbons, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5895.
    Caldwell v. Miller, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5897.
    Del Raine v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5900.
    Hood v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5913.
    Del Raine v. Banks et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5916.
    Davis v. Barber, Parole Officer, Indiana Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5917.
    Holman v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5922.
    Denson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5925.
    Torres-Lopez v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5926.
    Valdes v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5937.
    Sanchez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5944.
    Sun v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5965.
    Bey v. Zimmerman, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5971.
    Graham v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5980.
    Middleton v. Fulcomer, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5993.
    Foreman v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6000.
    Murphy, aka O’Murchu v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6021.
    Molina-Uribe v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6022.
    No. 88-6027.
    Musser v. United States; and Harvey v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 856 F. 2d 1484.


text:
    No. 88-6037.
    Zola v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6046.
    Durham v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6049.
    Nikolaou v. Department of the Navy.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6050.
    Malizia v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6052.
    Murr v. Jackson, Superintendent, Pickaway Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6054.
    Teagler v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6055.
    Stivers v. Department of the Navy.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6057.
    Smith v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6058.
    Sgaraglino v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6061.
    Smith v. Fulcomer, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6065.
    Miller v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6067.
    Green v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6068.
    Friel v. Owens, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6071.
    Mitchell v. Henderson, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6077.
    Mezo v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6081.
    Jones v. City of St. Louis et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6085.
    Washington v. Ylst, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6087.
    Littleton v. Alexander et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6089.
    Lepiscopo v. Blackhurst, Judge, District Court of New Mexico, Second Judicial District.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6091.
    Pool v. Armontrout, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6095.
    Cortez v. Price et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6099.
    Shayanfar v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6102.
    Lemons v. Cox et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6103.
    Travis v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6106.
    Larkins v. Michigan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6107.
    Eierle v. Ellis, Superintendent, Union Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6109.
    Wilson v. Tenoglia et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6110.
    Wilson v. Seiter, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6111.
    Wilson v. Denton et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6112.
    Wilson v. Seiter, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6114.
    Davenport v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6115.
    Balawajder v. Criminal District Court of Texas at Fort Worth, Texas, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6116.
    Schultz et ux. v. Swanhorst et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6118.
    Janes v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6119.
    Moten v. Johnson et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6123.
    Castaneda v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6124.
    Jones v. Zimmerman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6125.
    Trotz v. Supreme Court of the United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6130.
    Murrietta v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6132.
    Semenchuk v. Morris, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6134.
    Day v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6137.
    Swenson v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6139.
    Harris v. Warden, Maryland House of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6143.
    Gray v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 6th Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6144.
    Evans v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6145.
    Martin v. Shank et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6146.
    Diamond v. Disciplinary Counsel et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6147.
    Stogner v. Pickett et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6149.
    Childs v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6151.
    Hamilton v. District Court of Montana, Third Judicial District.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6152.
    Wilkinson v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6156.
    Wolfe v. Alexandria, Virginia, et al.; and Wolfe v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6157.
    Young v. Kraatz et al.
   Ct. App. Cal, 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6158.
    Walls v. Prothonotary, New Castle County.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6160.
    Hunt v. Vermont.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6162.
    Fica v. Schwartz.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6163.
    Aronhalt, aka Jonjock v. Deeds, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6164.
    Huang v. Stern, Rosenau & Rosenthal.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6165.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6167.
    Ferdik v. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6168.
    Kurbegovich v. Vasquez, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6169.
    Demos v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6170.
    Schiefelbein v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6171.
    Turner v. California.
   Sup. Ct. CaL Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6172.
    Ragheb v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6173.
    Levy v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6174.
    Rotman v. Worcester Housing Authority.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6175.
    Rynkiewicz v. Jeanes Hospital et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6176.
    Mauldin v. Fields, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6178.
    Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6179.
    McDevitt v. Blumenstein.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6182.
    Ortega v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6183.
    Edwards v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6184.
    Slaby v. American Physical Society et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6185.
    Hall v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6186.
    Herbage v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6191.
    Baker v. McMackin, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6192.
    Jackson v. Dutton, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6194.
    Barnette v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6195.
    Moore v. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6196.
    Hillary v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6197.
    Williams v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6198.
    Mornes v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6199.
    Stewart v. St. Petersburg Times.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6200.
    Williams v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6201.
    White, by His Next Friend Swafford v. Gerbitz et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6205.
    Darrow v. Davis, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6206.
    Maulick v. Virginia.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6208.
    Harvey v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6209.
    Griffin v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6210.
    Box v. Petsock, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution and Diagnostic (and Classification Center) at Pittsburgh, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6213.
    Botsch v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6214.
    Fisher v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A.. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6215.
    Sosa v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6217.
    Duncan v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6218.
    Arias Gomez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6219.
    Walker v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6220.
    Bower v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6221.
    Gregory v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6223.
    Hannaford v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6225.
    Jaramillo v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6226.
    Lawrence v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6228.
    Malekzadeh v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6229.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6230.
    Perotti v. Shaner.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6231.
    Miller v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6232.
    Outlaw v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6233.
    Scott v. Dantes, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6235.
    Giles v. Garwood et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6238.
    Feldman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6239.
    Wilson v. Denton et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6240.
    Span v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6241.
    Neal v. IAM Local Lodge 2386.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6244.
    Kelly v. McWherter, Warden.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6246.
    DuPree v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6247.
    Herman v. Geer et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6248.
    Helwig v. LeCureaux, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6249.
    Lowe v. King et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6250.
    Church v. Warren, Judge, Circuit Court of Virginia, Amelia County, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6251.
    Hunter v. Lewis et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6252.
    Ainsworth v. Roberts, Superintendent, Rankin County Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6253.
    Allen v. Harris et al.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6254.
    Noble v. Rees, Superintendent, Deuel Vocational Institution.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6256.
    McSwain v. Beyer, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6257.
    Pearsall v. District of Columbia Department of Human Services.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6259.
    Whiteside v. Minnesota et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6261.
    Nuttelman v. Julch et al.
   Sup. Ct. Neb.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6262.
    Parez v. General Atomic.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6266.
    Olive v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6276.
    Mann v. Burke et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6278.
    Strickland v. Tillman, Chief Judge, DeKalb County Superior Court, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6279.
    Morrison v. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6280.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6284.
    Winters v. Lynch et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6291.
    Adesiji v. Minnesota.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6302.
    Henry v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6303.
    Handal v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6304.
    Buelow et al. v. Bablitch, Administrator, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Corrections.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6312.
    Tauber v. Brown et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6314.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6322.
    McNair v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6323.
    Gardner v. Borgert, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6332.
    Torres-Benavidez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6339.
    Bisbicus v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6344.
    Kennedy v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6351.
    Lowenberg v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6355.
    Quinones v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6357.
    Provencio-Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6364.
    Strifler et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-399.
    Hammond v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-651.
    Richard Anderson Photography v. Radford University et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motions of American Intellectual Property Law Association and Association of American Publishers, Inc., et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-776.
    Raff, Arkansas State Prosecutor, et al. v. Lewellen.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-777.
    Guangzhou Maritime Transport Bureau of China v. Hughes Drilling Fluids.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Maritime Law Association of the United States for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-813.
    Cincinnati Post et al. v. General Electric Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-850.
    Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-920.
    Dixon, Warden, et al. v. McDowell.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1026.
    Armontrout, Warden v. Pool.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1043.
    Zant, Warden v. Cervi.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-950.
    Page v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Justice O’Connor,

text:
    No. 88-975.
    Dudley v. Stubbs.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join,

dissenting.

Because the judgment below rests upon a fundamental misconception of this Court’s decision in Whitley v. Albers, 475 U. S. 312 (1986), and conflicts with the approach taken by the vast majority of the Courts of Appeals, including a prior decision of the Second Circuit itself, I would grant the petition for certiorari. Ungler the decision which the Court declines to review today, prison officials are essentially held strictly liable under the Eighth Amendment for split-second decisions made in the face of serious threats to the security of the prison facility. This is precisely the result that our decision in Whitley was designed to avoid.

I

On February 4, 1977, the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility was the site of an institution-wide sitdown strike orchestrated and controlled by a group of prisoners known as the “Muslims.” That evening, as respondent, John Stubbs, an inmate at the institution, was walking down the main corridor of C control area of the prison to make a telephone call, he was confronted by a gang of 20 to 30 Muslim prisoners. The gang was armed with homemade knives up to 16 inches in length as well as other weapons wrapped in sheets. The mob began to chase respondent through the corridors of the prison, throwing garbage cans and table legs down the hallways. As respondent ran toward the telephone room, he noticed petitioner, Robert Dudley, and another guard standing in front of a door leading to the administrative control center of the prison. Neither Officer Dudley nor the correctional officer with him had a firearm, a baton, or a two-way radio. The prison arsenal, the offices of the prison superintendent, and the prison hospital are all accessible from the administration corridor.

When respondent approached the door to the administration area with the armed mob directly behind him, Officer Dudley and the other corrections officer entered the administration corridor and secured the door from the other side. Officer Dudley refused to open the door to the administration corridor, despite the entreaties of respondent. Respondent then ran down another corridor and jumped over the counter of the telephone room and cried for help. The correctional officers in the telephone room, and one inmate present there, immediately removed themselves to positions of safety. At this point the angry mob caught up with respondent and beat him severely.

Respondent brought this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against petitioner and other corrections officials, alleging that the failure to aid him during the disturbance constituted a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The case was tried to a jury before a Magistrate. Officer Dudley testified that he did not open the administration door because he never had the chance to, but indicated that he would not have done so in any event, given the fact that the prison arsenal and the superintendent’s office lay on the other side. As he put it at trial, “[TJhere is no way you are to allow inmates to go up into that area, especially in that type of situation.” Pet. for Cert. 5. In addition, there was expert testimony at trial that Officer Dudley had followed proper procedure in securing the administration corridor door. At the close of the evidence, petitioner asked for an instruction to the jury that his conduct must have been “malicious and sadistic” to support Eighth Amendment liability under this Court’s decision in Whitley v. Albers, supra. The trial court rejected petitioner’s proposed instruction and instead delivered a “deliberate indifference” charge. The jury returned a verdict against Officer Dudley in the amount of $26,000 for alleged violations of respondent’s Eighth Amendment rights.

The Magistrate subsequently granted petitioner’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Magistrate found this case “akin” to the situation presented in Whitley, and emphasized that ‘“prison administrators . . . should be accorded wide ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 5b, quoting Whitley, supra, at 321-322 (citation omitted). The Magistrate cited three factors which justified the entry of judgment for petitioner. First, “there was a serious threat to prison security at the time Stubbs sought Dudley’s protection.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 7b. Second, “Dudley acted without ill will or malice”; and third, “prior to the attack upon Stubbs, Dudley had no knowledge of either a threat to Stubbs’ life, or the possibility that Stubbs would be attacked.” Ibid. The Magistrate concluded that, “[gjiven the exigent circumstances, it is obvious that Dudley acted quickly to respond to the dangerous situation with which he was confronted. His failure to take into account Stubbs’ welfare may have been unfortunate but it cannot fairly be characterized as deliberately indifferent.” Id., at 9b.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the judgment for petitioner and reinstated the jury’s verdict. 849 F. 2d 83 (1988). The crux of the lower court’s holding in this case is contained in the following passage:

“Whitley involved a full-blown prison riot. In the present case the condition creating the ‘prison disturbance’ was the Stubbs incident itself: twenty or more angry prisoners wanted to hurt one prisoner. The issue put to the jury was whether the defendant corrections officers acted unconstitutionally in allowing them to do so. The only ‘competing institutional concern[]’ in this context was whether the defendants, by aiding Stubbs, might plausibly put prison security (or their own safety) at risk. This was for the jury to decide under the ‘deliberate indifference’ standard.” Id., at 86 (footnote omitted).

The Court of Appeals noted that there was evidence that the prison’s Muslim population had engaged in a “sit down strike” on the day of the incident, but found that “the situation apparently created no unusual threat to prison security.” Id., at 86, n. 3.

In Whitley this Court analyzed the dictates of the Eighth Amendment in the context of a prison disturbance that involved the taking of a correctional officer as a hostage. In response to the hostage taking, prison officials determined that forceful intervention was necessary to protect the life of the hostage and the safety of the prisoners not connected with the riot. During the assault on a barricade erected by the prisoners holding the hostage, a prisoner was hit in the knee by a shotgun blast. The prisoner brought a § 1983 action against prison officials, claiming violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The District Court directed a verdict for the prison officials, finding that the use of deadly force was justified “ ‘under the unique circumstances of this case.’” 475 U. S., at 317. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that because the prison riot was subsiding at the time the rescue plan was carried out, a reasonable jury could find that the use of force entailed a “ ‘ “deliberate indifference” ’ ” to the injured prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Id., at 318.

This Court reversed, noting that the “deliberate indifference” standard of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 (1976), “was appropriate in the context presented in that case because the State’s responsibility to attend to the medical needs of prisoners does not ordinarily clash with other equally important governmental responsibilities.” Whitley, 475 U. S., at 320. The Court found that the balance must be struck differently where prison security and the safety of both prison officials and inmates is threatened. “In this setting, a deliberate indifference standard does not adequately capture the importance of such competing obligations, or convey the appropriate hesitancy to critique in hindsight decisions necessarily made in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance.” Ibid. Accordingly, the Court set out the following test to be applied in such cases:

“Where a prison security measure is undertaken to resolve a disturbance, such as occurred in this case, that indisputably poses significant risks to the safety of inmates and prison staff, we think the question whether the measure taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering ultimately turns on ‘whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’ ” Id., at 320-321 (citation omitted).

The Court indicated that the standard it enunciated applied to “prophylactic or preventive measures intended to reduce the incidence of these or any other breaches of prison discipline.” Id., at 322. Decisions made “in bad faith or for no legitimate purpose” are not insulated from review, but judge and jury may not substitute their judgment as to the reasonableness of the action taken by prison officials. Unless an inference of wanton and sadistic infliction of pain arises from the facts as pled, “the case should not go to the jury.” Ibid.

The Court of Appeals’ determination that “deliberate indifference” was the correct Eighth Amendment standard under which to assess the correctional officer’s action in this case is directly contrary to our decision in Whitley. The court’s opinion acknowledges that the very kind of “competing institutional concerns” present in Whitley were present here, but then goes on to find that the deliberate indifference standard was appropriate. The situation here was' arguably more dangerous than in Whitley, where, although a hostage had been taken, the situation had stabilized and the correction officials had time to plan a course of action. Here a split-second decision had to be made. A single door stood between armed prisoners, who had engaged in a sit-in earlier in the day, and the prison arsenal and the office of the prison superintendent. Application of the deliberate indifference standard in a setting like this one essentially renders prison officials strictly liable for putting the security of the prison and the lives of all its inhabitants before the physical security of one inmate. In this case, if Officer Dudley had attempted to aid respondent by opening the door, and tragedy had ensued, he would no doubt have been subject to disciplinary action by his superiors, not to mention state law tort liability for any ensuing injuries caused by his decision.

The judgment here also conflicts with the decision of another panel of the Second Circuit which held that the Whitley standard applied to a correctional officer’s use of force in the face of an explosive situation created by a prisoner’s use of racial slurs in a crowded cafeteria and his subsequent resistance to orders to leave the scene. See Corselli v. Coughlin, 842 F. 2d 23, 26 (1988) {“Whitley is distinguishable on the facts, since that case involved a full-scale prison riot and the incident here was far from that. Nevertheless, the test under Whitley applies . . .”). Moreover, no other Court of Appeals has interpreted Whitley as limited to “full-blown prison riots,” and it is clear that this case would have been decided differently in other Circuits in the country. See, e. g., Hines v. Boothe, 841 F. 2d 623, 625 (CA5 1988) (applying Whitley where single prisoner resisted order to return to his cell); Holloway v. Lockhart, 813 F. 2d 874, 879 (CA8 1987) (applying Whitley standard to use of tear gas to end occupation of prison day room); Ort v. White, 813 F. 2d 318, 323 (CA11 1987) (“Although Whitley was decided in the the extremely volatile context of a prison riot, its reasoning may be applied to other prison situations requiring immediate coercive action”).

II

While the resources of this Court are scarce, and the judgment the Court declines to review today is aberrational enough that correction within the Second Circuit appears likely, in my view the great potential for disruption of prison security engendered by the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case merits the strong medicine of summary reversal. There are 64 state run correctional institutions within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit with a total prison population of over 40,000 inmates. U. S. Dept, of Justice, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics — 1987, pp. 449, 493 (1988). The Federal Government runs five correctional institutions within the same geographic region, housing almost 4,000 federal detainees. U. S. Dept, of Justice, Federal Prison System, Monday Morning Highlights, Jan. 23, 1989. In all of these institutions, prison officials and correctional officers must now choose between their sworn duty to maintain the security of the institution and the dictates of the Eighth Amendment as interpreted by the Second Circuit. Because nothing in the Constitution creates such a Hobson’s choice, and because this Court has explicitly so held in Whitley, I would grant the petition for certio-rari and reverse the judgment below. I respectfully dissent.


text:
    No. 88-998.
    Caldwell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-1008.
    Alman v. George Manufacturing Corp. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1062.
    Beer Wholesalers, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co. et al.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-1089.
    Benson v. Faul et al; In re Benson; and Benson v. Ally et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1112.
    Honolulu Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Murabayashi et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-5586.
    No. 88-5871.
    No. 88-6079.
    No. 88-6082.
    No. 88-6101.
    No. 88-6135.
    No. 88-6136.
    No. 88-6166.
    No. 88-6190.
    No. 88-6202.
    No. 88-6290.
    No. 88-6325.
    Burton v. California. Sloan v. Missouri. Jones v. Illinois. Hardy v. Georgia. Turner v. Florida. Boliek v. Missouri. Harvey v. Florida. Allridge v. Texas. Williams v. Ohio. Hamilton v. California. Gilmore v. Missouri. Brown v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Mo.;

Sup. Ct. Ill.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Ct. App. Mo., Southern Dist.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist.; and

Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 88-5871, 756 S. W. 2d 503; No. 88-6079, 123 Ill. 2d 387, 528 N. E. 2d 648; No. 88-6082, 258 Ga. 523, 371 S. E. 2d 849; No. 88-6101, 530 So. 2d 45; No. 88-6135, 755 S. W. 2d 417; No. 88-6136, 529 So. 2d 1083; No. 88-6166, 762 S. W. 2d 146; No. 88-6190, 38 Ohio St. 3d 346, 528 N. E. 2d 910; No. 88-6202, 46 Cal. 3d 123, 756 P. 2d 1348; No. 88-6290, 755 S. W. 2d 419; No. 88-6325, 38 Ohio St. 3d 305, 528 N. E. 2d 523.

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. 88-5892.
    In re S.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Motion of petitioner to seal the appendix to the petition for writ of certiorari granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 88-6009.
    Crawford v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.

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 grant the petition for writ of certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case. Even if I did not take this view, I would grant the petition to resolve the question whether Georgia’s standard for change of venue — forbidding changes in venue unless prejudice renders a fair trial impossible — comports with the requirements of due process.

Eddie Crawford was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed on the grounds that the jury might actually have convicted Crawford not of murder but felony murder, a crime not charged in the indictment. On retrial, Crawford’s attorney filed a motion for change of venue, which was denied. He also objected to the seating of any juror who had knowledge of the prior proceeding. This motion was also denied. According to the petition in this case, of the 90 venirepersons, 57 indicated that they were aware of the prior proceedings, 50 indicated that they knew that Crawford had been convicted, and 32 knew that the first jury had sentenced him to death. The jury that was finally empaneled contained eight persons who knew about the prior trial, five who knew that Crawford had been convicted, and three who knew that he had been sentenced to death. The jury convicted Crawford of murder and sentenced him to death.

On appeal, Crawford challenged, inter alia, the trial court’s refusal to grant him a change of venue. The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected this claim, holding that the setting of the trial was not ‘“inherently prejudicial as a result of the pretrial publicity.’” 257 Ga. 681, 683, 362 S. E. 2d 201, 203 (1987) (quoting Chancey v. State, 256 Ga. 415, 431, 349 S. E. 2d 717, 732 (1986)). The court concluded that the jury selection did not show “actual prejudice to a degree that rendered a fair trial impossible.” 257 Ga., at 683, 362 S. E. 2d, at 203.

In my view, Georgia’s standard for change of venue is so hard to satisfy that it violates any conceivable notion of due process. It totally ignores this Court’s repeated recognition that “our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.” In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955) (emphasis added); see also Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333, 352 (1966); Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 544 (1965). As I argued recently in Brecheen v. Oklahoma, 485 U. S. 909, 911 (1988) (opinion dissenting from denial of certiorari), a State’s change of venue standard must reflect that a “defendant’s interest in a fundamentally fair trial outweighs the State’s interest in holding that trial in a particular district.” That standard has been flagrantly violated in this case by the seating of a jury a majority of which knew of Crawford’s past trial and a quarter of which knew of his prior death sentence.

In the absence of guidance from this Court, the States continue to take divergent paths. It is time we addressed the minimal due process requirements for state change of venue standards. See, e. g., Lee v. Georgia, 488 U. S. 879 (1988) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Hale v. Oklahoma, 488 U. S. 878 (1988) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). I would grant the petition.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 88-6059.
    DePew v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. 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 grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case. Even if I did not hold these views, I would still grant the petition for cer-tiorari. By any reasonable measure, the prosecutor’s comments to the jury “‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 168, 181 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637, 643 (1974).

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. The Ohio Supreme Court identified four instances of pros-ecutorial misconduct, but concluded that, because of the brutal nature of the crime, they neither singly nor cumulatively deprived petitioner of a fair trial.

The first was the prosecution’s inquiry, during cross-examination of a defense witness, into a “knife fight” during which petitioner had allegedly been cut. The knife fight was wholly unrelated to the alleged murder, and the judge accordingly admonished the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s reference to it. 38 Ohio St. 3d 275, 284, 528 N. E. 2d 542, 553 (1988).

The second was the prosecutor’s comment during closing argument that, if petitioner had taken the stand, the prosecutor would have inquired into petitioner’s criminal convictions after the date of the alleged murder. The judge again ordered that the jury disregard the prosecutor’s comment, and the prosecutor apologized to the jury, saying: “T shouldn’t have said that. I wish you would just forget that because there’s nothing like that here.’” Ibid.

The third was the prosecutor’s introduction into evidence, during the penalty phase, of a photograph of petitioner standing next to a marijuana plant. The prosecutor adverted to this photograph during the penalty phase. The State Supreme Court found the introduction of this photograph to be error, but concluded: “The factors supporting death as a penalty were so persuasive and so numerous that this single photograph cannot be regarded as having materially prejudiced [petitioner].” Id., at 287, 528 N. E. 2d, at 555.

Fourth and finally, the prosecutor made various improper closing-argument comments, “by reminding the jury that any sentence less than death could result in eventual parole, by alluding to facts not in evidence, by asking the jury why [petitioner] did not call certain persons to the stand, and by appealing to the jury’s desire for law and order.” Ibid. The State Supreme Court again found these comments only harmless error.

In my view, it is beyond serious dispute that these prosecutorial actions cumulatively deprived petitioner of a fair trial. The dissenting State Supreme Court judge characterized these actions, quite properly in my view, as “prosecutorial misconduct of the worst sort.” Id., at 293, 528 N. E. 2d, at 560 (Wright, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Even the majority, so tolerant of these abuses, found it necessary to state: “While the prosecutorial misconduct in this case does not require a reversal of appellant’s sentence, we express our mounting alarm over the increasing incidence of misconduct by both prosecutors and defense counsel in capital cases.” Id., at 288, 528 N. E. 2d, at 556. I would accordingly grant certiorari here to clarify that behavior such as that outlined above is simply not constitutionally acceptable and to correct the errors in this case which may have been responsible for putting petitioner on death row.


text:
    No. 88-6078.
    Britz v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. 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 grant the petition for writ of certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case. Even if I did not hold this view, I would grant the petition to consider whether a jury instruction that sympathy should not influence a decision regarding the imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

I

Dewayne C. Britz was convicted of murder, aggravated kidnap-ing, aggravated criminal sexual assault, armed robbery, and concealment of a homicidal death. At the penalty phase, the trial judge charged the jury that “ ‘[njeither sympathy nor prejudice should influence you.’” 123 Ill. 2d 446, 479, 528 N. E. 2d 703, 719 (1988), quoting Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 1.01 (2d ed. 1981). Defense counsel specifically objected to this, instruction. The jury unanimously found that statutory aggravating factors existed and that no mitigating factors precluded the imposition of the death sentence. Petitioner was sentenced to death.

The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. 123 Ill. 2d 446, 528 N. E. 2d 703 (1988). The court held that the trial court’s no-sympathy jury instruction was similar to the instruction approved in California v. Brown, 479 U. S. 538 (1987). Relying on its decision in People v. Stewart, 104 Ill. 2d 463, 473 N. E. 2d 1227 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U. S. 1120 (1985), the court further held that the instruction did not deny petitioner a fair trial because the jury was also instructed that it could consider any other facts or circumstances that favored imposition of a sentence other than death, and because the defendant was permitted to introduce all evidence he considered mitigating, including evidence ruled inadmissible during the guilt phase.

II

We have recognized repeatedly that, in a capital case, the sentencer must not be precluded from considering any mitigating evidence relating to the defendant or the crime. See, e. g., Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 111-112 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion). Mitigating evidence is allowed at the penalty phase so the sentencer may consider “compassionate . . . factors stemming from the diverse frailties of humankind.” Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 304 (1976) (plurality opinion). “Nothing in any of our cases suggests that the decision to afford an individual defendant mercy violates the Constitution.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 199 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); see also Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320, 330-331 (1985).

The Court reaffirmed the importance of considering mitigating evidence in California v. Brown, supra. There, the trial judge instructed the jury that it must not be swayed by “ ‘mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.”’ 479 U. S., at 542. The majority held that this instruction did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for two reasons. First, it found that the word “mere” informed the jury “to ignore only the sort of sympathy that would be totally divorced from the evidence adduced during the penalty phase.” Ibid, (emphasis added). “By concentrating on the noun ‘sympathy,’ ” the defendant had “ignore[d] the crucial fact that the jury was instructed to avoid basing its decision on mere sympathy.” Ibid, (emphasis in original). Second, the majority deemed it “highly unlikely that any reasonable juror would almost perversely single out the word ‘sympathy’ from the other nouns which accompany it in the instruction: conjecture, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling.” Id., at 542-543. “Reading the instruction as a whole,” id., at 543, a rational juror could only conclude that the instruction was intended simply to confine the jury’s deliberations to considerations arising from the evidence presented.

Neither of the reasons relied upon by the majority to uphold the instruction in California v. Brown, supra, is applicable to the jury instruction at issue in this case. Here, the jury was informed that sympathy should not influence its decision under any circumstances. The trial court’s all-inclusive no-sympathy instruction, thus, embraced sympathy engendered by facts in the record as well as sympathy engendered by “extraneous emotional factors.” Ibid. Furthermore, unlike the instruction in Brown, the instruction here was not contained in “a catalog of the kind of factors that could improperly influence a juror’s decision to vote for or against the death penalty.” Ibid. Reasonable jurors, therefore, may well have thought they were not permitted to exercise mercy or compassion when sentencing petitioner, even if such feelings were “rooted” in the evidence. Id., at 542.

Ill

The constitutionality of a general no-sympathy instruction is a recurring issue on which the lower courts have differed. Compare Byrne v. Butler, 847 F. 2d 1135 (CA5 1988), and State v. Clemmons, 753 S. W. 2d 901 (Mo.) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 948 (1988), with People v. Hamilton, 46 Cal. 3d 123, 152, and n. 7, 756 P. 2d 1348, 1364-1365, and n. 7 (1988), cert. denied, ante, p. 1040, and Parks v. Brown, 860 F. 2d 1545, 1559 (CA10 1988). The petition should be granted in order to resolve this conflict and to address this important issue. I dissent.


text:
    No. 88-6113.
    Cobb v. Nizami et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6133 (A-532).
    Trotz v. United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6281.
    Layton v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 87-2009.
    No. 88-237.
    No. 88-459.
    No. 88-736.
    No. 88-751.
    No. 88-896.
    No. 88-5603.
    No. 88-5701.
    No. 88-5716.
    No. 88-5768.
    No. 88-5852.
    No. 88-5860.
    No. 88-5880.
    No. 88-5982.
    Greenman v. United States, Noel v. Department of Sanitation of City of New York, Anderson et al. v. United States, Wankoff, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Wankoff v. Tibbs et al., Rowland v. Alameda County Probation Department, Polyak v. Hulen et al., Ingram v. Kemp, Warden, Span v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al., Lemberg v. Tseng et al., Sellner v. Prince George’s County, Maryland, et al., Betka v. City of West Linn, Oregon, et al. (two cases), Trotz v. United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, et al., Singleton v. Thigpen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, In re Gill,
   488 U. S. 824;

488 U. S. 925;

488 U. S. 966;

488 U. S. 1007;

488 U. S. 982;

488 U. S. 999;

488 U. S. 975;

488 U. S. 973;

488 U. S. 984;

488 U. S. 985;

488 U. S. 999;

488 U. S. 1015;

488 U. S. 1019; and

488 U. S. 1002. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 87-7311.
    Poindexter v. Ohio,
   488 U. S. 916. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 88-575.
    Burt v. Maui Architectural Group, Inc., et al.,
   488 U. S. 962. Motion of appellant to consolidate denied. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 88-647.
    Whitehorn et ux. v. Murphy et al.,
   488 U. S. 997. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-656.
    No. 88-677.
    Friedman v. Ferguson et al., Boyle, Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., In re Martin,
   488 U. S. 993;

488 U. S. 994; and

No. 88-5921.

488 U. S. 1002. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    February 24, 1989
    No. A-638 (88-6585).
    Fetterly v. Idaho.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Application to continue stay of execution of death warrant, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, 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:
    No. A-671 (88-6635).
    Williams v. Kemp, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Application of respondent for an order to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    February 27, 1989
    No. 88-1017.
    Ajax Navigation Corp. v. Dos Santos.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. 88-715.
    Burleson v. Burleson.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 88-5990.
    Robinson v. United States Department of Education.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Pa. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 88-6242.
    Robinson v. English Department of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Pa. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 87-1784.
    Massachusetts v. Gray, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Newbury Cafe, Inc., dba 29 Newbury.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., ante, p. 235.


text:
    No. 87-2070.
    DeGeare et al. v. Slattery Group, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, ante, p. 101.


text:
    No. 87-6063.
    Meadows v. Holland, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Harris v. Reed, ante, p. 255.


text:
    No. 87-7320.
    Sparks v. Foltz, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Hams v. Reed, ante, p. 255.


text:
    No. 88-163.
    Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al. v. Saporito et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, ante, p. 101.


text:
    No. 88-729.
    Rowe et al. v. Allied Chemical Hourly Employees’ Pension Plan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, ante, p. 101.


text:
    No. D-723.
    In re Disbarment of Stark.
    [For earlier order herein, see 487 U. S. 1248.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-735.
    In re Disbarment of Stoll.
    [For earlier order herein, see 488 U. S. 885.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-771.
    In re Disbarment of Biaggi.
   It is ordered that Mario Biaggi, of New York, N. Y., 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. 114,
    Orig.
    Louisiana v. Mississippi et al.,
   488 U. S. 990. Petition for rehearing and alternative motion to file separate complaint denied.


text:
    No. 87-2127.
    American Foreign Service Assn. et al. v. Garfinkel, Director, Information Security Oversight Office, et al.
   D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 488 U. S. 923.] Motions of United States Senate and Speaker and Leadership Group for leave to file briefs as amici curiae out of time granted.


text:
    No. 88-148.
    Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Fritz et al.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-293.
    Community for Creative Non-Violence et al. v. Reid.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 940.] Motion of Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts Inc. et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-309.
    Wyoming v. United States et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 1040.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 88-1105.
    Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 88-6265.
    Carlson et ux. v. County of Hennepin, Minnesota, et al.
   Ct. App. Minn. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until March 20, 1989, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 88-6285.
    No. 88-6334.
    In re Todd; and In re Jones.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 88-928.
    White, Executor of the Estate of Smith v. United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-995.
    Northbrook National Insurance Co. v. Brewer.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-2012.
    No. 87-2051.
    No. 88-49.
    FW/PBS, Inc., dba Paris Adult Bookstore II, et al. v. City of Dallas et al.; M. J. R., Inc., et al. v. City of Dallas; and Berry et al. v. City of Dallas et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Citizens For Decency Through Law, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 87-2012 granted. Certiorari granted in No. 87-2012 limited to Questions I, II, and III presented by the petition. Certiorari granted in No. 87-2051 limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition. Certiorari granted in No. 88-49. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 837 F. 2d 1298.


text:
    No. 88-5050.
    Holland v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-6025.
    Dowling v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 87-1283.
    Higgins v. City of Vallejo, California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1754.
    City of South Bend et al. v. Janowiak.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-2022.
    Anderson et al. v. Slattery Group, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-2052.
    M. E. F. Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. City of Houston et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5813.
    Yates v. Hardiman, Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5816.
    Newsome v. Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5884.
    Miller v. O’Leary, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6031.
    Roman v. Abrams, Attorney General of New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6154.
    Schreiber v. Salamack, Superintendent, Edgecombe Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6302.
    Smith v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6789.
    Harren v. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-828.
    Biaggi et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-892.
    Kinoy v. Tolson, Executor of the Estate of Hoover, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-907.
    Skelton v. Action.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-919.
    McCarthy v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-924.
    Gronda v. Newman, Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-940.
    Bank One, Stevens Point, NA v. United States Department of Commerce et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-947.
    Harrison et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-948.
    City of Brunswick, Georgia v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-966.
    Sweeney et al. v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-979.
    Baum et al. v. Nolan et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-990.
    Dehal v. Frank, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-999.
    Fraccola v. City of Utica et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1064.
    Miller v. ConAgra, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1085.
    Estate of Willis et al. v. Estate of Riley et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1098.
    Berg v. Hunter et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1101.
    Madison v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1103.
    Wilder et al. v. New York State Urban Development Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1115.
    Wilmoth v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1122.
    Goetz v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1124.
    City of Berwyn et al. v. Pizzato’s Inc. et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1129.
    Alwan Brothers Co. et al. v. Gnidovec et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1130.
    Nutri/System, Inc., et al. v. Herskowitz et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1131.
    Harbor Insurance Co. v. Crow et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1132.
    Finn v. Chevron, U. S. A., Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1134.
    Smith v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1135.
    Larrance v. Illinois Human Rights Commission et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1137.
    International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Mack Trucks, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1140.
    Ludwig v. Evergreen Overlook, Inc., et al.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1172.
    Gownaris et vir v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1183.
    White, Warden v. Chatom.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1196.
    Goree et al. v. Lavelle et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1205.
    Haggerty v. City of Pompano Beach, Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1219.
    Bielicki et ux. v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1226.
    Bryant v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Alameda. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1230.
    Manuel v. Veterans Administration Hospital et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1231.
    Moeller v. United States et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1235.
    Boineau v. United States et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1251.
    Velez et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1262.
    Burke, aka Owens v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1287.
    Murray et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5415.
    Reedy v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5668.
    Bruni v. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5681.
    Workman v. Tate, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institute.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5849.
    Davis v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6030.
    Bowden, aka Drakeford v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6140.
    Bonacci et al. v. Kindt, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6243.
    Hefner v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th

App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6245.
    Clark v. Fortney et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6264.
    Cambridge v. Duckworth, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6268.
    Maynard v. Marion Power Shovel, Division of Dresser Industries, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6269.
    Fournette v. Butler, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6270.
    Jarvis v. Meares, Superintendent, Gaston Facility, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6271.
    Harrell v. Borg, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6274.
    Villamor v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6275.
    Riley v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6282.
    Elswick v. Parke, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6283.
    Curley v. Morris, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6286.
    Perez v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6288.
    Gutierrez v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6289.
    Jackson v. South Texas College of Law et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6292.
    Davis-El v. Robinson.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6295.
    Mills v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6296.
    Spickler v. Dube et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6297.
    Small v. Bumgarner, Superintendent, Southern Correctional Center, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6298.
    Maddox v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6299.
    Nobles v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6300.
    Sanders v. Lane, Illinois Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6301.
    Sultana v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6307.
    Tinghitella v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6309.
    Taylor v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6311.
    Zatko v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6313.
    Story v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6328.
    McCabe v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6840.
    Barr v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6354.
    Asante v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6362.
    Hardin v. Makowski et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6367.
    Barnhill v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6369.
    Dawson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6371.
    Affleck v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6377.
    Richardson v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6378.
    Shook et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6382.
    Kabir v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6389.
    Vennes v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6398.
    Slaughter v. Moody et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6400.
    Schleicher v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6406.
    Zulueta v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6407.
    Morse v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6413.
    Landrie v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6419.
    Chambers v. DuCharme, Superintendent, Washington State Reformatory.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6421.
    Reeves v. Reed.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6426.
    Roberts v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-889.
    Compoy, Warden v. Turner.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-5617.
    No. 87-6740.
    No. 87-7103.
    No. 88-5082.
    No. 88-5473.
    No. 88-5687.
    No. 88-5828.
    No. 88-6237.
    No. 88-6310.
    No. 88-6383.
    No. 88-6410.
    Lindsey v. Smith, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. Davis v. Illinois. Simmons v. Kentucky. Willis v. Zant, Superintendent, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center. Horsley v. Alabama. Edwards v. Black, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al. Dunkins v. Thigpen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. Cunningham v. Zant, Warden. Brown v. California. Kirkpatrick v. California. Nave v. Missouri.
   C. A. 11th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Ill.;

Sup. Ct. Ky.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

Ct. Crim. App. Ala.;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.; and

Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 87-5617, 820 F. 2d 1137; No. 87-6740, 119 Ill. 2d 61, 518 N. E. 2d 78; No. 87-7103, 746 S. W. 2d 393; No. 88-5082, 838 F. 2d 1510; No. 88-5473, 527 So. 2d 1355; No. 88-5687, 849 F. 2d 204; No. 88-5828, 854 F. 2d 394; No. 88-6310, 46 Cal. 3d 432, 758 P. 2d 1135; No. 88-6410, 757 S. W. 2d 249.

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. 88-581.
    United States v. Still.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice White and Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-1019.
    Berkson v. Del Monte Corp. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-1136.
    Connecticut National Bank v. Herskowitz et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-5343.
    Farmer v. Sumner, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. 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 grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.

Even if I did not hold these views, however, I would still grant this petition. Petitioner’s argument here is that evidence was admitted at the penalty phase of his trial in violation of Booth v. Maryland, 482 U. S. 496 (1987), where we held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact statement evidence. This argument is hardly frivolous. The prosecutor at petitioner’s trial described at some length the devastating emotional impact upon the mother of the man petitioner killed. He told the jury, among other things, that petitioner “shattered some other lives psychologically”; that the victim’s mother has “repeated nightmares, crying, and I can see the crying for myself. Extremely emotionally traumatic”; and that petitioner “[n]ever thought about the victims. Never gave the families of the victims, a thought.” The Nevada Supreme Court, however, refused to consider the merits of this Booth claim. It held that petitioner’s claim was barred because he had not raised it below, and because this Court has given no indication that Booth operates retroactively.

I am unpersuaded by these arguments. The fact that petitioner did not raise a Booth claim below rather obviously reflects the fact that Booth had not been handed down at the time. Petitioner should not be penalized for not being prescient. As for the Nevada court’s second ground for rejecting petitioner’s appeal, I believe that the issue whether Booth should have retroactive operation very much warrants this Court’s attention. The abusive use by the prosecutor in this case of references to victim impact— information we held in Booth to be thoroughly irrelevant in capital sentencing proceedings, see 482 U. S., at 502-509 provides a graphic illustration of the harm done by decisions, like the one below, allowing Booth to be applied only prospectively.


text:
    No. 88-845.
    No. 88-5271.
    No. 88-5600.
    No. 88-5670.
    No. 88-5785.
    No. 88-5920.
    Bibb et ux. v. United States, Eaton v. Louisiana, Gilliard v. Scroggy, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al., Lonchar v. Georgia, O’Leary v. Yarmosky, Burgest v. Gearinger, Warden,
   488 U. S. 1010;

488 U. S. 1019;

488 U. S. 1019;

488 U. S. 1019;

488 U. S. 999; and

488 U. S. 1016. Petitions for rehearing denied.