text:
    No. 88-7381.
    Bonin v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. 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 penalty in this case. Even if I did not take this view, I would grant the petition because it raises several important and recurring questions concerning a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel unburdened by any conflict of interest. First, on what showing must a trial court explore a possible conflict on the part of a defendant’s attorney? Second, if a defendant’s attorney had an actual conflict, must the defendant demonstrate that the conflict adversely affected the attorney’s performance in order to obtain a new trial?

I

On the eve of his trial for several murders and robberies, petitioner William George Bonin moved to replace Earl Hanson, who had been his attorney for over a year, with William Charvet. The prosecution opposed the motion principally on the ground that substituting Charvet would create two conflicts of interest that could jeopardize the effectiveness of Charvet’s representation. First, Charvet had maintained an attorney-client relationship with James Munro, Bonin’s alleged accomplice and a key prosecution witness against him, during which Charvet and Munro had discussed the facts of the case. Second, the prosecution maintained that Charvet’s retainer agreement likely included a provision giving him the literary rights to Bonin’s life story. The trial court initially denied Bonin’s motion to substitute Charvet for Hanson, in large part because it found that Charvet’s relationship with Munro created an actual conflict of interest. The court later permitted Charvet to represent Bonin, however, without addressing either conflict and without obtaining a waiver from Bonin of his right to conflict-free counsel.

Bonin subsequently was convicted of 10 counts of murder and robbery and sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court, in a split decision, affirmed the convictions and sentence, rejecting Bonin’s argument that Charvet’s alleged and actual conflicts of interest deprived Bonin of effeptive assistance of counsel. The court held that the trial court did not err by failing to explore the alleged literary rights agreement because the trial court had not been presented with sufficient evidence of such an agreement. Although the State Supreme Court did find that the trial court erred in allowing Charvet’s substitution after learning of his relationship with Munro, it refused to reverse the convictions and sentence on the ground that Bonin had not demonstrated that Charvet’s performance as counsel was adversely affected by this conflict of interest. 47 Cal. 3d 808, 765 P. 2d 460 (1989).

II

I would grant Bonin’s petition to determine whether the trial court had a duty to inquire into the potential conflict of interest arising from the alleged literary rights deal between Charvet and Bonin. It is well established that the right to effective assistance of counsel carries with it “a correlative right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest.” Wood v. Georgia, 450 U. S. 261, 271 (1981). It is also apparent that a literary rights agreement may seriously undermine an advocate’s loyalty to his client’s interests. In a passage quoted in the California Supreme Court’s opinion, the American Bar Association underscores the dangers of such arrangements:

“A grave conflict of interest can arise out of an agreement between a lawyer and an accused giving the lawyer the right to publish books, plays, articles, interviews, pictures, or related literary rights concerning the case. . . . [I]t may place the lawyer under temptation to conduct the defense with an eye on the literary aspects and its dramatic potential. If such an arrangement or contract is part of the fee, in lieu of the fee, or a condition of accepting the employment, it is especially reprehensible.” ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-3.4 (2d ed. 1980).

See also 47 Cal. 3d, at 836, 765 P. 2d, at 475 (quoting prior draft of ABA standards).

To protect a defendant’s right to conflict-free counsel, a trial court must initiate an inquiry when it knows or reasonably should know of the possibility of a conflict of interest. Wood v. Georgia, supra, at 272, and n. 18; see also Wheat v. United States, 486 U. S. 153, 160 (1988); Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 347 (1980). In Wood, the petitioners had been convicted of distributing obscene materials. Their probation was revoked when they failed to pay substantial fines. This Court vacated the probation revocation because the trial court had failed to inquire into a possible conflict of interest on the part of the petitioners’ attorney. The possibility of a conflict was apparent not from any concrete evidence, but from the circumstances of the representation. In particular, the petitioners’ lawyer, who had been selected and paid by their employer, pressed a constitutional attack rather than arguing for leniency and a reduction in the fines, possibly to create a test case for the petitioners’ employer. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U. S., at 272. Moreover, this Court found that the “the fact that the State raised the conflict problem explicitly and requested that the court look into it” should have alerted the trial court to the need for further inquiry. Id., at 273. The Court held that although it was difficult to determine from the appellate record whether an actual conflict was present, “the possibility of a conflict of interest was sufficiently apparent at the time of the revocation hearing to impose upon the court a duty to inquire further.” Id., at 272.

The California Supreme Court departed from Wood in this case by holding that a defendant must present hard evidence to trigger a trial court’s duty to investigate a potential conflict of interest. The possibility of a conflict here was at least as apparent as it was in Wood. Bonin, though indigent, was able to hire a private attorney on the eve of the trial in a highly publicized and notorious case. The prosecution specifically objected to the substitution of Charvet because of the likelihood that the retainer agreement included a literary rights deal. When the court asked Charvet whether he had made such a deal with Bonin, he answered evasively, asserting that the prosecution had no right to inquire into his fee arrangement and that this Court would sanction any literary rights agreement. Despite the clear possibility that Charvet had entered into a retainer agreement that could seriously compromise his duty of loyalty to his client, the court failed to inquire further, even after continued objection by the prosecution.

Because the trial court did not conduct the necessary inquiry, it is impossible for this Court to determine from the record whether an actual conflict resulted from a literary rights deal. As in Wood, supra, at 273, the only appropriate response in such a circumstance is to vacate the judgment below and remand to the trial court for it to determine whether an actual conflict existed. If the trial court were to find an actual conflict, I believe, for the reasons next set out, that Bonin is entitled to a new trial.

III

I would also grant Bonin’s petition to decide whether a criminal defendant denied the right to conflict-free counsel must show that the conflict adversely affected his attorney’s performance. The California Supreme Court acknowledged Charvet’s prior attorney-client relationship with Munro; it further held that the trial court erred by permitting Charvet to represent Bonin without obtaining a waiver from Bonin of his right to conflict-free counsel. Nevertheless, the court refused to reverse Bonin’s conviction because petitioner had not shown that the conflict adversely affected Charvet’s performance. In my view, we should presume adverse effect on counsel’s performance once an actual conflict is shown.

This Court has never squarely resolved the question whether proof of adverse effect is required to overturn a conviction once an actual conflict is proved. In Cuyler v. Sullivan, the Court stated that where a trial court has no reason to suspect a possible conflict, a defendant, in order to establish a Sixth Amendment violation on appeal, must show that “an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” 446 U. S., at 348. Sullivan left unclear, however, whether an actual conflict should be presumed to have an adverse effect, or whether a defendant must prove both an actual conflict and an adverse effect. See id., at 358 (Marshall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Sullivan held merely that “the possibility of conflict is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction” on appeal. Id., at 350 (emphasis added). This Court subsequently appeared to suggest in dictum that Sullivan required separate showings of actual conflict and adverse effect to reverse a criminal conviction. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 692 (1984) (“Prejudice is presumed only if the defendant demonstrates that counsel ‘actively represented conflicting interests’ and that ‘an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance’ ”) (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, at 350, 348). Strickland’s reading of Sullivan, however, is at odds with the holding in Wood v. Georgia. In Wood, this Court not only vacated the judgment below because the trial court had failed to investigate a possible conflict, but it also instructed the trial court to conduct a new revocation hearing if it found that an actual conflict existed and that the petitioners had not waived their right to conflict-free counsel. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U. S., at 273-274. The Court did not require the petitioners to prove on remand that the conflict adversely affected their counsel's performance.

It is axiomatic that “the assistance of counsel is among those ‘constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.’” Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U. S. 475, 489 (1978) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 23 (1967)). The right to counsel’s undivided loyalty is a critical component of the right to assistance of counsel; when counsel is burdened by a conflict of interest, he deprives his client of his Sixth Amendment right as surely as if he failed to appear at trial. See Holloway v. Arkansas, supra, at 490 (“The mere physical presence of an attorney does not fulfill the Sixth Amendment guarantee when the advocate’s conflicting obligations have effectively sealed his lips on crucial matters”). For this reason, a defendant who shows an actual conflict need not demonstrate that his counsel’s divided loyalties prejudiced the outcome of his trial. Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, at 349-350. The right to conflict-free counsel is simply too important and absolute “to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 76 (1942); accord, Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, at 349. We should be no more willing to countenance nice calculations as to how a conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance. “The conflict itself demonstrate^] a denial of the ‘right to have the effective assistance of counsel.’” Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, at 349 (quoting Glasser v. United States, supra, at 76).

Moreover, requiring proof of actual adverse effect would essentially eliminate all Sixth Amendment claims based on conflicts of interest because gauging how a conflict affected an attorney’s performance is usually impossible. As this Court' explained in the context of prejudice:

“[I]n a case of joint representation of conflicting interests the evil — it bears repeating — is in what the advocate finds himself compelled to refrain from doing, not only at trial but also as to possible pretrial plea negotiations and in the sentencing process. It may be possible in some cases to indentify from the record the prejudice resulting from an attorney’s failure to undertake certain trial tasks, but even with a record of the sentencing hearing available it would be difficult to judge intelligently the impact of a conflict on the attorney’s representation of a client. And to assess the impact of a conflict of interests on the attorney’s options, tactics, and decisions in plea negotiations would be virtually impossible.” Holloway v. Arkansas, supra, at 490-491.

The same factors that make it nearly impossible to show prejudice make it equally difficult to prove adverse effect. In this case, for example, how could petitioner demonstrate on appeal that Char-vet’s attorney-client relationship with Munro limited Charvet’s ability to cross-examine Munro? The California Supreme Court was satisfied that Charvet’s attack on Munro’s credibility during cross-examination was “broad and deep.” But an appellate court cannot determine what Charvet was unable to ask for fear of violating Munro’s attorney-client privilege. Given the finding that Charvet’s relationship with Munro created a conflict, it seems beyond doubt that Charvet must have refrained from pursuing certain lines of inquiry. Similarly, if the trial court on remand were to find that an actual conflict resulted from the literary rights agreement, it would be exceedingly difficult for that court, or an appellate court, to determine whether counsel’s actions or inactions resulted from strategic choices made in the interest of his client or, rather, from counsel’s own interest in maximizing the trial’s drama so as to create a bestseller.

Conflict-of-interest claims thus differ in kind from standard ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. This Court has, with respect to the latter, indulged in the presumption that counsel’s conduct was the result of strategic decisions made in accordance with the client’s best interests. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S., at 689. Such a presumption is arguably tenable in those cases because counsel’s basic loyalty to his client is not in question. When a known conflict undermines counsel’s duty of loyalty, “perhaps the most basic of counsel’s duties,” id., at 692, however, that presumption is inapplicable; instead, a court must presume that counsel’s divided loyalties adversely affected his performance on behalf of his client. When the effects of a constitutional violation are not only unknown but unknowable, the Constitution demands that doubts be resolved in favor of a criminal defendant. Unless the defendant validly waived his right to conflict-free counsel, then, a showing of actual conflict alone necessitates a new trial.

IV

Because Bonin stands to be executed, it is imperative that this Court ensure that he was fairly tried and sentenced. The Sixth Amendment demands that every criminal defendant receive the assistance of conflict-free counsel. It is undisputed that petitioner’s counsel was burdened by at least one actual conflict and possibly another. It is also a fact that petitioner did not waive his right to conflict-free counsel. In these circumstances, the Sixth Amendment requires that petitioner be given a new trial. I therefore dissent from the denial of certiorari.

       Of course, if Bonin had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to conflict-free counsel, he would have no grounds for appeal on this score. Cf. Wheat v. United States, 486 U. S. 153, 166-167, and n. 1 (1988) (Marshall, J., dissenting). Absent such a waiver, however, the trial court had a duty to inquire into possible conflicts and, upon finding an actual conflict, to deny the motion to substitute Charvet.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 89-773.
    Tennessee v. Pilkey.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1182.
    Kentucky v. Johnson.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-882.
    Clarke County, Georgia, School District v. Drew P.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 89-1189.
    Brock et ux., Individually and as Next Friends of Brock, a Minor v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 89-1016.
    Hernandez Colon, Governor of Puerto Rico, et al. v. Morales Feliciano et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of respondents Pedro Rivera Ortiz et al. for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1318.
    Egly et al. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice BlacKmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 89-5629.
    Wallace v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

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 sentence in this case.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 89-6347.
    Smith v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Blackmun dissents and would grant certiorari.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.

In Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782, 797 (1982), we held that imposing a death sentence on a defendant “who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place” violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. In Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U. S. 376, 390-391 (1986), the Court reaffirmed and expanded upon Enmund, holding that the federal courts could not make the determination that a defendant met one of the Enmund criteria on their review of state-court judgments. Rather, we held that “the State’s judicial process leading to the imposition of the death penalty must at some point provide for a finding of that factual predicate.” 474 U. S., at 390-391. In Tison v. Arizona, 481 U. S. 137, 158 (1987), this Court held that a showing of both reckless indifference to human life and major participation in a felony would be sufficient to satisfy Enmund. The Court refused to make those findings itself, however, instead remanding to the state courts for a determination whether those factors were present. 481 U. S., at 158.

In this case, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that Enmund, Cabana, and Tison were satisfied solely on the basis of the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found that defendant had the intent to kill. In refusing to review the decision below, this Court sanctions a grave departure from our precedents by a panel of a court with a major role in the administration of this Nation’s death penalty law. Accordingly, I dissent.

Respondent does not dispute the basic rule that a State may not sentence to death a defendant “who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place,” Enmund, supra, at 797, unless that defendant was a major participant in a felony and exhibited reckless indifference to human life, Tison, supra, at 158. Nor does respondent suggest that a federal court may make the required finding. Instead, the issue in this case is whether a state court’s conclusion that “there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found [Smith] guilty of premeditated murder,” Smith v. State, 424 So. 2d 726, 733 (1983), constitutes the culpability finding required by our cases.

The entirety of the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning on this point is that “[i]mplicit in [the Florida Supreme Court’s sufficiency] finding is the conclusion that Smith had the intent to kill.” 840 F. 2d 787, 793 (1988). Simply asserting a conclusion is hardly sufficient to justify it, especially where, as here, the conclusion is so plainly farfetched. The Florida court’s finding that the evidence was sufficient for Smith’s jury to find him guilty of premeditated murder is nothing more than a finding that reasonable people could have found that verdict justified; it is emphatically not a finding that this jury did determine that Smith’s acts were premeditated. Indeed, the Cabana Court rejected as insufficient a state court’s statement far more conclusive than the one here. There, the Mississippi Supreme Court found that “‘[t]he evidence [was] overwhelming that [defendant] was an active participant in the assault and homicide.’” Cabana, 474 U. S., at 389. Although this finding was “sufficient to make [the defendant] liable for the murder and deserving of the death penalty in light of Mississippi law,” it did not satisfy the Eighth Amendment. Ibid.

That the Florida court did not make the required finding is particularly apparent from an examination of its opinion as a whole. In response to an unrelated guilt-phase point of error-, the court found that Smith could have been found guilty and sentenced to death on either of two theories, one of which was the felony-murder doctrine. 424 So. 2d, at 731. “Under this theory the jury would not have needed to conclude that [Smith] had the requisite intent.” Id., at 731-732. The Florida Supreme Court’s sufficiency determination thus in no way establishes that Smith’s jury found the essential factual predicate to a death verdict under Enmund, especially in light of the court’s acknowledgement that the jury was instructed that it could convict Smith regardless of his intent.

It is tempting to view the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in this case as an unfortunate aberration that should be disregarded as such. Perhaps such a hope has informed this Court’s decision to deny certiorari. Nonetheless, the refusal to review the decision below has important consequences. A panel of a Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over the death penalty statutes of three States has equated a state appellate court’s finding that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could have found intent to kill with a finding that the defendant did in fact intend to kill. The panel came to that conclusion notwithstanding that the jury was instructed that it could return a sentence of death even if it did not believe that Smith had the requisite intent. Sufficiency of the evidence claims are routinely made in state death penalty appeals, and state appellate courts invariably will have to make a sufficiency finding in the course of their review. To permit such a finding to satisfy Enmund, Cabana, and Tison is to eviscerate their protections. Because I do not think it seemly or sensible for this Court to permit a significant violation of the' Eighth Amendment to stand, simply on the hope that it will have no effect beyond the immediate case, I dissent.

Even if I did not believe that this case otherwise merited review, I would adhere 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 therefore grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.

       Of course, after Tison v. Arizona, 481 U. S. 137 (1987), the Florida courts were not required to find that Smith intended to kill in order to satisfy the Eighth Amendment. A finding that he was recklessly indifferent to human life and a major participant in the felony would have satisfied Tison. Id,., at 158. The Florida courts did not even purport to make the finding required by Tison, however. The only finding in the Florida courts on which respondent relies is the finding that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found Smith guilty of premeditated murder.


text:
    No. 88-5050. No. 88-6995. No. 89-820. No. 89-897. No. 89-5452. No. 89-5784.
    Holland v. Illinois, 493 U. S. 474; Moore v. California, 490 U. S. 1095; Kindig v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., et al., 493 U. S. 1025; Grimes v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 493 U. S. 1058; Weaver v. Sheaffer et al., 493 U. S. 1059; and Bowyer v. United States Air Force et al., 493 U. S. 1046.
   Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 88-2137.
    McMonagle et al. v. Northeast Women’s Center, Inc., 493 U. S. 901.
   Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 22, 1990
    No. 88-2109.
    Kansas et al. v. Kansas Power & Light Co. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 493 U. S. 1041.] Writ of certiorari dismissed as to respondent Kansas Power & Light Co. under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    March 26, 1990
    No. 88-1878.
    Saffle, Warden, et al. v. Davis.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Saffle v. Parks, ante, p. 484.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens dissent.


author: Justice Kennedy,

text:
    No. 88-7081.
    McNeil v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of McKoy v. North Carolina, ante, p. 433.

Justice Kennedy,

with whom The Chief Justice, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Scalia join¡ dissenting.

The Court adopts what may be perceived as a prudent coui'se by granting certiorari in this case, vacating the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court, and remanding for consideration in light of our decision in McKoy v. North Carolina, ante, p. 433. It is true that petitioner was sentenced prior to our decision in McKoy, and that the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected his challenge to the sentence on the basis of its decision in State v. McKoy, 323 N. C. 1, 372 S. E. 2d 12 (1988). In the particular circumstances of this case, however, there is no basis upon which we should disturb the judgment.

The record shows that the unanimity instruction held unconstitutional in McKoy was not given in petitioner’s trial. Neither did the verdict form given to the jurors contain any unanimity requirement as to mitigating circumstances. The form, reproduced as Appendix E to the petition for certiorari, required unanimity as to the presence of aggravating factors (issue 1) and as to the result of the weighing stages of the statute (issues 3 and 4), but not as to presence of mitigating factors (issue 2). Given the express unanimity requirement as to issues 1, 3, and 4, but the omission of any such requirement as to issue 2 on the verdict form, no reasonable juror would have interpreted the form or the instructions to require unanimity as to mitigating factors.

On remand, the North Carolina Supreme Court remains free to consider these facts, or any others that may affect the determination whether our opinion in McKoy requires alteration of its judgment. Similarly, in cases where there is a question of procedural default, e. g., Artis v. North Carolina, ante, p. 1023, or where a unanimity requirement may have been harmless due to failure to present mitigating evidence, e. g., Hunt v. North Carolina, ante, p. 1022; Laws v. North Carolina, ante, p. 1022, these issues remain open for examination on remand. Because it is in my view clear, however, that no unanimity requirement was involved in this case, I would deny the petition for certiorari.


text:
    No. 89-1128.
    United Transportation Union v. United Transportation Union, Local 74.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Teamsters v. Terry, ante, p. 558.


text:
    No.---.
    Brooks v. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of

certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-632 (89-7005).
    Harris v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the issuance of the mandate of this Court.


text:
    No. A-651.
    Walker v. State Bar of California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Application for stay, addressed to Justice White and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-661 (89-939).
    HealthAmerica et al. v. Menton, 493 U. S. 1093.
   Application for stay pending disposition of a petition for rehearing, addressed to Justice O’Connor and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-815.
    In re Disbarment of Shimek.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 493 U. S. 949.]


text:
    No. D-821.
    In re Disbarment of Elliott.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 493 U. S. 950.]


text:
    No. D-844.
    In re Disbarment of Ray.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 493 U. S. 988.]


text:
    No. D-849.
    In re Disbarment of Reiner.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 493 U. S. 1040.]


text:
    No. D-878.
    In re Disbarment of Schwartz.
   It is ordered that Jeffrey Mark Schwartz, 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. D-879.
    In re Disbarment of Anderson.
   It is ordered that Ronald Etheridge Anderson, of Huntington Park, Cal, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-880.
    In re Disbarment of Jackson.
   It is ordered that Hesper A. Jackson, Jr., of Brooklyn, 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. D-881.
    In re Disbarment of Shoemaker.
   It is ordered that Daniel W. Shoemaker, of Taneytown, Md., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-882.
    In re Disbarment of Tierney.
   It is ordered that Thomas W. Tierney, of Kansas City, Mo., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-883.
    In re Disbarment of Singer.
   It is ordered that Barry H. Singer, 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. D-884.
    In re Disbarment of Sanna.
   It is ordered that Richard J. Sanna, of Bethpage, 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. D-885.
    In re Disbarment of Sanders.
   It is ordered that Sheldon Joel Sanders, of Lido Beach, 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. 88-2041.
    Sisson v. Ruby et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 493 U. S. 1055.] Motions of American Auto, Inc., and Maritime Law Association of the United States for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-2109.
    Kansas et al. v. UtiliCorp United Inc.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted sub nom. Kansas v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 493 U. S. 1041.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 89-152.
    English v. General Electric Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 493 U. S. 1055.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 89-260.
    Idaho v. Wright.,
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. [Certiorari granted, 493 U. S. 1041.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 89-579.
    Charter Co. v. Certified Class in the Charter Securities Litigation et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of the parties to defer further consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari granted until May 30, 1990.


text:
    No. 89-1040.
    Chappell v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the reply brief granted.


text:
    No. 89-1106.
    Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Department of Treasury.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1015.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 89-5011.
    Powers v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. [Certiorari granted, 493 U. S. 1068.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Robert L. Lane, Esq., of Columbus, Ohio, be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 89-6622.
    Kliewer v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until April 16, 1990, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(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. 89-6573.
    No. 89-6705.
    In re Gilreath; and In re Ross.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 89-1080.
    Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools, Independent School District No. 89, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma v. Dowell et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 89-1215.
    International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, et al. v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 89-1283.
    Arcadia, Ohio, et al. v. Ohio Power Co. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 89-839.
    Arizona v. Fulminante.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 89-1027.
    No. 89-1028.
    Norfolk & Western Railway Co. et al. v. American Train Dispatchers’ Assn. et al.; and CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Railway Carmen et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 89-5900.
    Rust v. Gunter et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 89-593.
    Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. et al. v. Commissioner of Revenue of Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-686.
    No. 89-890.
    Nevins et al. v. Hoopa Valley Tribe et al.; and Hoopa Valley Tribe et al. v. Nevins et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-847.
    Studio Art Theatre of Evansville, Inc. v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-865.
    Trickey v. Coffman.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-877.
    Watkins v. Foltz, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-893.
    Maryland Pest Control Assn. et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-902.
    W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-930.
    Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. General Railway Signal Co.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1056.
    Department of Health Services of California et al. v. Citizens Action League et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1074.
    Fairchild Industries, Inc. v. Miller et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1124.
    American Booksellers Assn., Inc., et al. v. Virginia.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1219.
    Gilbert v. Colvert.
   Ct. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1225.
    LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enterprises.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1226.
    Walker v. Suburban Hospital Assn. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1241.
    Robinson et al. v. Dinner Bell Meats et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1243.
    Galloway et al. v. Zuckert et al.
   Ct. App. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1246.
    Agan v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1249.
    Vitale et ux. v. City of New Haven et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1256.
    Wrenn v. McFadden et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1257.
    McMartin et al. v. Children’s Institute International et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1259.
    Huyssen v. First Union Home Equity Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1282.
    Barker v. City of Philadelphia et al.
   Pa. Cominw. Ct. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1304.
    Wickersham v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1338.
    Walter v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1347.
    Bessay v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1353.
    R. W. Meyer, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1365.
    Damiani v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6043.
    Williams v. McCarthy et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6108.
    Donley v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6110.
    Dale v. Haeberlin, Acting Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6230.
    Parker v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6296.
    Fulminante v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6300.
    Campbell v. Horton, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6312.
    Gainer v. Jeffes et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6359.
    Washington v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6364.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6433.
    Weeks v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6572.
    Prows v. Kindt et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6574.
    Ervin v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6576.
    Crockett v. Baptist Medical Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6579.
    Schmidt v. Iowa.
   Dist. Ct. Poweshiek County, Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6583.
    Smith et ux. v. Sooner Federal Savings & Loan Assn.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6595.
    Baker v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6597.
    Turpin v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6607.
    Tyler v. Wyrick, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6614.
    Ash v. Swest, Inc. , et al. (two cases).
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6615.
    Anderson v. Worden, District Court Judge.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6619.
    Friend v. Wilson et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6620.
    McClure v. Mazurkiewicz, Superintendent, State Correctional Institute at Rockview.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6621.
    Hunter v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6627.
    Turner v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6628.
    Sutherland et al. v. First National Bank of Commerce.
   Ct. App. La., 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6629.
    Magoon v. Young, Commissioner of Social and Rehabilitation Services of Vermont.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6637.
    Lane, aka Brown v. Whittinghill et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6640.
    Ledet v. 15th Judicial District Court et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6647.
    Klacsmann v. Fitch.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6661.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6662.
    Hill et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6688.
    McCallum v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6691.
    Wright v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6707.
    Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6709.
    Golden v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6726.
    Norton v. Parke, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6740.
    James v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6741.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6746.
    Major v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6747.
    McCrudden v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6754.
    Grandinetti v. United States.
   C. A. 7th. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-7459.
    No. 88-7461.
    No. 88-7555.
    No. 89-5208.
    No. 89-5478.
    No. 89-5624.
    No. 89-6003.
    No. 89-6383.
    No. 89-6385.
    No. 89-6419.
    No. 89-6538.
    No. 89-6571.
    No. 89-6608.
    No. 89-6653.
    No. 89-6785.
    Jones v. South Carolina. Sup. Ct. S. C.; Woomer v. Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al. Sup. Ct. S. C.; Roe v. Ohio. Sup. Ct. Ohio; McGee v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; Moore v. Kentucky. Sup. Ct. Ky.; Smith v. South Carolina. Sup. Ct. S. C.; Strong v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa.; Andrews v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal.; Fowler v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.; Brewer v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.; Fierro v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. C. A. 5th Cir.; Sloan v. Missouri. Sup. Ct. Mo.; Fox v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.; Walls v. Missouri. Sup. Ct. Mo.; and Heishman v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal.
   Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 89-527.
    Callahan, Superintendent, McNeil Island Correction Facility v. Robtoy; and DuCharme, Superintendent, Washington State Reformatory v. Norman.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-707.
    Simmons, Chairman, Kentucky Parole Board, et al. v. Dunn.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1142.
    Ferlauto et al. v. New Jersey et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1254.
    Whitfield v. Coca-Cola Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 89-1258.
    Bhandari v. First National Bank of Commerce.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom Justice O’Connor joins, dissenting.

This petition presents the issue whether 42 U. S. C. §1981 (1982 ed.) prohibits alienage discrimination in the making of private contracts. When first considering this case, the Fifth Circuit in banc held that § 1981 does not have this effect. Bhandari v. First National Bank of Commerce, 829 F. 2d 1343 (1987). Petitioner sought review here. We granted the petition, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded the case so that the Court of Appeals might reconsider its holding in light of our decision in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164 (1989). See 492 U. S. 901 (1989). Reaffirming Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160 (1976), we held in Patterson that § 1981 covers acts of private discrimination. On remand, the Fifth Circuit declined to alter its original holding. The in banc court reasoned that Patterson was inapposite because that case concerned private racial discrimination whereas this case involves private alienage discrimination. 887 F. 2d 609 (1989).

I would grant the petition because it is not clear to me that § 1981 should be construed to prohibit private, as well as official, discrimination on the basis of race, but to prohibit only governmental discrimination on the basis of alienage. Prior cases, see Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 377 (1971), and Takahashi v. Fish and Game Comm’n, 334 U. S. 410, 419 (1948), have indicated that §1981 prohibits official discrimination against aliens. In Runyon, we held that §1981 extends to private conduct, a holding reaffirmed in Patterson. Certiorari should be granted to settle whether §1981 proscribes private alienage discrimination.


text:
    No. 89-6123.
    Del Vecchio v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111. 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 this view, I would grant the petition to consider whether the trial judge’s failure to recuse himself violated petitioner’s due process right to be tried and sentenced by an impartial judge. For the reasons set forth in Justice Clark’s dissent in this case, 129 Ill. 2d 265, 297-302, 544 N. E. 2d 312, 327-330 (1989), I believe that the trial judge’s participation in this case, given his involvement in the prosecution of a 1965 murder charge against the defendant, presented an unacceptable appearance of partiality. The Court has previously considered only charges that the adjudicator has a “direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in the case before him, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 523 (1927), or allegations that the judge was influenced by generalized hostility towards certain kinds of private businesses, Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U. S. 813, 820 (1986). Because I believe we should now consider petitioner’s very different contentions of improper bias on the part of the trial judge, I dissent.


text:
    No. 89-6044.
    Collier v. Evans et al., 493 U. S. 1047.
   Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 88-6580.
    No. 89-5819.
    No. 89-6118.
    Portwood, aka Tucker, et al. v. United States, 490 U. S. 1069; Holmes v. Horton, Warden, et al., 493 U. S. 996; and Alston v. Leeke, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al., 493 U. S. 1034.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 28, 1990
    No. A-650.
    Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, et al. v. Jeffers et al.
   D. C. E. D. Ark. Application for stay pending appeal, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    March 30, 1990
    No. 89-1433.
    No. 89-1434.
    United States v. Eichman et al. United States v. Haggerty et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C.; and

Appeal from D. C. W. D. Wash. Motion of the Speaker and Leadership Group of the House of Representatives for leave to file, as amici curiae, a printed brief that differs from the previously submitted typewritten brief granted. Motion of the Solicitor General to expedite consideration of the statements as to jurisdiction granted. Probable jurisdiction noted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. The brief of the Solicitor General is to be filed with the Clerk; of the Court and served upon appellees on or before 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 18, 1990. The briefs of the appellees are to be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served upon the Solicitor General on or before 3:00 p.m., Thursday, May 3, 1990. Any reply brief is to be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served upon appellees on or before 3:00 p.m., Thursday, May 10, 1990. Cases are set for oral argument at .10:00 a.m., Monday, May 14, 1990.


text:
    April 2, 1990
    No. 89-6561.
    Moss v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari dismissed.


text:
    No.---.
    Keane v. New York.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to docket an appeal that does not comply with the Rules of this Court denied.


text:
    No. A-683.
    Vasquez, Warden v. Harris.
   Application of the Attorney General of California to vacate the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, dated March 30, 1990, staying the execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, denied.

The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy would grant the application.


text:
    No. D-851.
    In re Disbarment of Dworkin.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 493 U. S. 1040.]


text:
    No. D-886.
    In re Disbarment of McCann.
   It is ordered that Frank Moses McCann, of Lynchburg, Va., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-887.
    In re Disbarment of Aragon.
   It is ordered that Leopoldo Thomas Aragon, of Jackson, Miss., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-888.
    In re Disbarment of Raben.
   It is ordered that Ronald J. Raben, of St. Louis, Mo., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-889.
    In re Disbarment of Mazur.
   It is ordered that Jack Martin Mazur, of St. Louis, Mo., 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. 89-1296.
    Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Williams Natural Gas Co. 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. 89-1303.
    Reserve Life Insurance Co. v. Eichenseer.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 89-6892.
    In re Stelten.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 89-1279.
    Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 89-46.
    Wood et al. v. General Motors Corp.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-279.
    Kitts, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kitts v. General Motors Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-459.
    Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Association of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-778.
    Hollander v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-852.
    Taylor et al. v. General Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-879.
    Stangler, Director, Department of Social Services of Missouri v. Darling et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-940.
    Meier et al. v. Nissan Motor Corporation in U. S. A. et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1085.
    Sexton v. Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1118.
    New Life Baptist Church Academy et al. v. Town of East Longmeadow et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1247.
    H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v. Transamerica Insurance Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1264.
    Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. McNasby et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1267.
    Rosenthal v. State Bar of California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1273.
    International Logistics Group, Ltd. v. Chrysler Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1284.
    Fowler Industries, Inc., et al. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 613.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1285.
    Aeron Marine Co. v. Miles, Individually and as Administratrix of the Succession of Torregano.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1286.
    Frank v. Morando et al.
   Ct. App. Cal, 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1288.
    Spears et al. v. Cornelius.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1289.
    Chapman v. Homco, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1291.
    Moshkelgosha et al. v. Prince George’s County, Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1294.
    Cassilly v. Maryland Department of Human Resources et al.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1299.
    Blackwell v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1302.
    Nzongola v. Georgia et al.
   Super. Ct. Ga., Fulton County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1308.
    Wilhelm et ux. v. First National Bank & Trust Co. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1337.
    Gardner v. Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1342.
    Candee Construction Co., Inc. v. Myers et al.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1369.
    Schmidt v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1387.
    Bridges v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1394.
    Pena v. Nichols, Sheriff, Oakland County, Michigan.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-5984.
    Brady v. Martin, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6162.
    Howell v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6172.
    Carey v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6345.
    Scott v. Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo (California, Real Party in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6408.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6438.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6589.
    Ospina v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6634.
    Estrada Ruiz v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6636.
    Sherrills v. Perini.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6644.
    Wiley v. Corrections Cabinet of Kentucky et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6645.
    Justice v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6650.
    Howard v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6651.
    Abramson et al. v. Bateman et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6654.
    Ringenberg et ux. v. City of Kahoka, Missouri, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6659.
    Gavitt v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6663.
    Hardy v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6667.
    Walton v. Northeast Women’s Center, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6671.
    Gonzalez v. Keohane, Warden.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6680.
    Ray v. United States Senate et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6685.
    McDonald v. Sullivan.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6689.
    Lane v. Chisholm.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6690.
    Bochter v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6696.
    Prather v. Parke, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6701.
    Betancourt v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6704.
    Gaines v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6708.
    Painter v. Beyer, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6718.
    Wickstrom v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6724.
    Kruse v. Kentucky.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6725.
    Justice v. City of Columbus et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6727.
    Laing v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6729.
    Cannon v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6733.
    No. 89-6736.
    Jaramillo v. United States; and Jaramillo v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6737.
    Lowe v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6748.
    Thai Do Hoang v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6762.
    Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6781.
    Gaston v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6782.
    Escobar-Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6788.
    Griffith v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6798.
    Atkins v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6805.
    Negron-Jessurun v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6812.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6815.
    Withers v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6827.
    Whyte v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6830.
    Ashby v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6843.
    Martin v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6864.
    Fisher v. Fulcomer, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Huntington, Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6883.
    Terry v. Blue Cab, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1141.
    Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Freeman.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Black-mun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 89-6126.
    Degraffenreid v. McKellar, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.

“[Ojurs is an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial system — a system in which the State must establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured and may not by coercion prove its charge against an accused out of his own mouth.” Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534, 541 (1961). Because the court below failed to examine fully whether petitioner’s confession was obtained by inquisitorial means condemned by the Due Process Clause, I would grant certiorari in this case to clarify the nature of the voluntariness inquiry.

In 1973, Claude Killian was murdered. Police questioned petitioner Ray Charles Degraffenreid shortly after the murder, but he was not then charged. In 1977, Degraffenreid was arrested for Killian’s murder while incarcerated in state prison on an unrelated conviction. Five days later, he confessed to law enforcement officials. At Degraffenreid’s first trial, the state court granted his motion to suppress his confession as involuntary, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict. At Degraffenreid’s retrial, a different judge admitted the confession. Degraffenreid was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on appeal by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Degraffenreid then sought state postconviction relief, which was likewise denied.

In this federal habeas petition, petitioner renews his challenge to the admission of his confession. The District Court referred the petition to a Magistrate for findings of fact and recommendations. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Magistrate found that the State had failed to prove that the confession was voluntary. The District Court refused to adopt the Magistrate’s recommendation on the ground that the Magistrate incorrectly allocated to the State the burden of proof regarding voluntariness. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, 883 F. 2d 68 (1989), and the full court denied rehearing en banc by a vote of 6 to 5.

The record in this case is replete with factual findings by various state and federal judges. The Magistrate’s findings, which set forth the essential and undisputed facts, are as follows:

“[P]etitioner was held incommunicado for three (3) to five (5) days in solitary confinement. He hád no exercise, no visitors, no telephone calls. He ate, slept, bathed, and existed within this one cell. There were no magazines, radios, television, books or other diversions. The only window was an observation window in the cell door which when open revealed the hall and the door to the sheriff’s office. The only time the petitioner was taken out of this reportedly cold cell was for questioning.
“The only safeguard taken to protect the petitioner’s rights was the giving of Miranda warnings. Despite the presence of judicial officers on the grounds of the facility and procedures for transporting prisoners to other court officials, the petitioner was not taken before a judicial officer, was not appointed an attorney and was not given any conditions of release until after he confessed.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-45.

It is also uncontested that prison officials placed a notice on the wall of the prison facility indicating that petitioner was to have no visitors or phone calls. From these facts the Magistrate concluded that “despite the advice of rights, the only way the petitioner was going to be released from solitary confinement and allowed contact with third parties was to give a confession.” Id., at A-47.

The Court of Appeals did not reject this account of the facts and indeed noted that “[t]he delay in taking Degraffenreid before a judicial officer should not be sanctioned as ideal procedure.” Id., at A-9. The court nonetheless ruled that Degraffenreid failed to establish “that the circumstances surrounding the confession were sufficiently egregious to cause Degraffenreid’s will to be overborne.” Ibid.

In Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104 (1985), we held that “the ultimate question of the admissibility of a confession merits treatment as a legal inquiry requiring plenary federal review.” Id., at 115. We identified two distinct questions that courts must ask in determining “voluntariness”: “whether the techniques for extracting the statements, as applied to this suspect, are compatible with a system that presumes innocence and assures that a conviction will not be secured by inquisitorial means [and] whether the defendant’s will was in fact overborne.” Id., at 116 (citing Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U. S. 49, 51 (1962)). These two inquiries safeguard two fundamental societal interests. The first inquiry ensures that inquisitorial means do not infect the criminal process. See Gallegos, supra, at 51. It is premised on our abiding belief “that the forfeiture of the lives, liberties or property of people accused of crime can only follow if procedural safeguards of due process have been obeyed.” Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 237 (1940); see also Miller, supra, at 109 (“This Court has long held that certain interrogation techniques, either in isolation or as applied to the unique characteristics of a particular suspect, are so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be condemned under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). The second inquiry, by focusing on whether a defendant’s will was in fact overborne, safeguards the Fifth Amendment right to be free from compelled self-incrimination. See Gallegos, sitpra, at 51.

In this case, the Court of Appeals focused solely on the second inquiry and failed to decide whether, as a matter of due process, the police efforts in this case were impermissibly inquisitorial. This analysis is essential because some police techniques, whether or not they actually overbear a defendant’s will, are repugnant to our adversarial system and cannot lay the foundation for a criminal conviction. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 286 (1936) (“The due process clause requires ‘that state action . . . shall be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions’”) (quoting Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 316 (1926)); Rogers, 365 U. S., at 540-541 (the Due Process Clause requires suppression of confessions improperly obtained “not because such confessions are unlikely to be true but because the methods used to extract them offend an underlying principle in the enforcement of our criminal law”). Here, law enforcement officials isolated petitioner from the outside world and made unmistakably clear that his incommunicado detention would end only with his confession. Cf. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503, 514 (1963) (“We cannot blind ourselves to what experience unmistakably teaches: that even apart from the express threat, the basic techniques present here — the secret and incommunicado detention and interrogation— are devices adapted and used to extort confessions from suspects”). Such techniques arguably do not conform “to the fundamental standards” of our criminal justice system. Chambers, supra, at 238. Because the Court of Appeals did not consider that possibility, I would grant certiorari in this case to clarify the dual nature of our voluntariness inquiry.


text:
    No. 89-6333.
    No. 89-6477.
    No. 89-6518.
    No. 89-6609.
    No. 89-6624.
    No. 89-6633.
    No. 89-6660.
    No. 89-6822.
    Davis v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss.; Brisbon v. Illinois. Sup. Ct. Ill.; Lindsey v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La.; Watkins v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va.; Hicks v. Kemp, Warden. Super. Ct. Ga., Butts County; Spivey v. Kemp, Warden. Sup. Ct. Ga.; Wilcoxson v. Tennessee. Sup. Ct. Tenn.; and Parker v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 89-5949.
    No. 89-6199.
    No. 89-6248.
    No. 89-6356.
    No. 89-6384.
    No. 89-6396.
    Mang Sun Wong v. United States; 493 U. S. 1082; Bond v. Raikes, Judge, et al., 493 U. S. 1062; Bynum v. United States, 493 U. S. 1085; Solon v. United States, 493 U. S. 1090; Scire v. United States, 493 U. S. 1090; and McCone v. Birge et al., ante, p. 1006.
   Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    April 16, 1990
    No. 88-7000.
    Stringer v. Black, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th 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 Clemons v. Mississippi, ante, p. 738.


text:
    No. 88-7358.
    Pinkney v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Clemons v. Mississippi, ante, p. 738.


text:
    No. 89-1040.
    Chappell v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief filed February 27, 1990.


text:
    No. 89-6893.
    Petary v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of McKoy v. North Carolina, ante, p. 433, and Boyde v. California, ante, p. 370.


text:
    No.---.
    Clark v. Community Service Publishing Inc. et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-682 (89-1399).
    International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California et al. v. George et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Application for stay, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted, and it is ordered that execution and enforcement of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, case No. D007153, entered August 30, 1989, and modified September 29, 1989, and that execution and enforcement of the order of the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Orange, case No. 27 75 65, entered March 16, 1990, are stayed pending this Court’s action on the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending issuance of the mandate of this Court.


text:
    No. D-842.
    In re Disbarment of Eisenberg.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 493 U. S. 988.] tered. [For earlier order herein, see 493 U. S. 988.]


text:
    No. D-845.
    In re Disbarment of Davis.
   Disbarment en-


text:
    No. D-862.
    In re Disbarment of Heller.
   Melvin A. Heller, of Chicago, 111., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on February 20, 1990 [493 U. S. 1067], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-863.
    In re Disbarment of Morris.
   Jerrold L. Morris, of Chicago, III, having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on February 26, 1990 [ante, p. 1001], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-865.
    In re Disbarment of Boyce.
   Earl Rumsey Boyce, of Palm Beach, Fla., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it. is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on February 26, 1990 [ante, p. 1002], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-866.
    In re Disbarment of Silveira.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1002.]


text:
    No. D-890.
    In re Disbarment of Hancock.
   It is ordered that Mac W. Hancock III, of Houston, Tex., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-891.
    In re Disbarment of Day.
   It is ordered that George A. Day, of Brownwood, Tex., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-892.
    In re Disbarment of Shorter.
   It is ordered that John A. Shorter, Jr., of Washington, D. C., 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. 88-2041.
    Sisson v. Ruby et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 493 U. S. 1055.] Motion of the parties to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted. Motion of Hatteras Yachts Division of Genmar Industries, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 89-609.
    No. 89-1330.
    Puckett et al. v. Native Village of Tyonek et al. C. A. 9th Cir.; and International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots et al. v. Brown.
   C. A. 4th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 89-645.
    Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lake County. [Certiorari granted, 493 U. S. 1055.] Motion of American Civil Liberties Union et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 89-711.
    Universal Fabricators, Inc. v. Smith et al., 493 U. S. 1070.
   Motion of respondent Carl Smith for approval of application for attorney’s fees denied without prejudice to filing the motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


text:
    No. 89-1230.
    City of Chicago et al. v. Friedrich.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent to consolidate this case with No. 89-994, West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. [certiorari granted, ante, p. 1003], for purposes of oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 89-5900.
    Rust v. Gunter et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1055.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Alvin J. Bronstein, Esq., of Washington, D. C., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 89-6818.
    In re Hicks.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Petition for writ of common-law certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1382.
    No. 89-6613.
    In re Freed; and In re DeBardeleben.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 89-1298.
    Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Motions of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, American Paper Institute, Inc., and Equal Employment Advisory Council for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    (See also No. 89-6818, supra.)

    No. 89-644.
    Robinson, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robinson v. Township of Waterford et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-709.
    Michigan v. Hawkins.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1023.
    Dubois et al. v. Hocking.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1041.
    Mississippi et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1094.
    Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc., et al. v. Kemp, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1098.
    National Association of Retired Federal Employees v. Newman, Director, Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1105.
    Zinniel et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1108.
    Birnbaum et al. v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1110.
    Educational Development Network Corp. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1131.
    Liao v. Dean et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1140.
    Doe v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1160.
    Michigan et al. v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1161.
    Michigan et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1173.
    Luskin v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1175.
    Nuclear Transport & Storage, Inc. v. United States, Acting Through its Department of Energy, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1176.
    Horton Automatics v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied..


text:
    No. 89-1194.
    Park Center Water District v. United States et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1198.
    Marroquin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1203.
    Kentucky v. Peterson.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1209.
    Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1253.
    Blount County Board of Education et al. v. Nichols.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1262.
    International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 660, et al. v. Hester.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1270.
    McNell ET AL. v. Hugel.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1274.
    Albert et al. v. Avery, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1306.
    Construction Engineers, Inc., et al. v. Conway Corp. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1310.
    Reid v. White Motor Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6t’ Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1312.
    Ames v. Ames et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1314.
    Rossco Holdings Inc., dba Quaker Corp., et al. v. California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1319.
    Tarka v. Franklin et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1323.
    Zettl v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1325.
    Gardner v. United States.
   C. A, 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1327.
    Ramos v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1328.
    Goodrich v. County of Los Angeles.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1329.
    Williams v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1331.
    Gwirtz et al. v. Ohio Education Assn.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1333.
    Sanders v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1334.
    Rosenthal v. Young et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1339.
    Ackley, dba Village Square Chevron, et al. v. Gulf Oil Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1340.
    Washburn v. Sheedy.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1341.
    Ramirez v. Transamerican Natural Gas Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1348.
    Clayton, a Minor, by Clayton, his Next Friend, et al. v. Place et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari de-

nied.


text:
    No. 89-1350.
    Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1351.
    Caramadre v. Fulcomer, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1352.
    Hass v. Oregon State Bar.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1354.
    Maxwell v. Goodwin et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1355.
    Baum, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Baum, et al. v. Egan et ux.
   App. Ct. 111., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1356.
    Stanko v. Giove.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1358.
    Kaloa et al. v. Native Village of Tyonek et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1359.
    Hill Resources, Inc. v. Cuesta Energy Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1362.
    Washington Mills Electro Minerals Corp. et al. v. DeLong Equipment Co.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1370.
    Gaceta et al. v. County of Santa Clara et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1374.
    Eason v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1389.
    DeMartino v. New York City Transit Authority et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1390.
    Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Assn. v. Abbott.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1393.
    Fugate v. Borg Textile Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1400.
    City of Longmont, Colorado v. Oakley.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1403.
    Vale v. Cooke et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1410.
    Zannino v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1417.
    Zeltzer v. Samuels, Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1422.
    Rost v. Frank, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1423.
    Cook v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1429.
    Guerrero v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1468.
    Jeffers v. Veterans Administration.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1478.
    Scalise et al. v. Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1488.
    Joshua Basin Partnership et al. v. United States Department of the Interior.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1492.
    Collier v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-5981.
    Liner v. Jones et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6184.
    No. 89-6203.
    Callanan v. United States; and Callanan v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6311.
    Gamble v. Jones, Superintendent, Missouri Training Center for Men.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6363.
    Scroggins v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6367.
    Leeds v. Department of Commerce; and Leeds v. Quigg, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6377.
    Crawford v. Davis et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6386.
    Anderson v. Rockwell International, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6417.
    Jones v. Celotex Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6421.
    Ely v. Hagg et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6434.
    Villasenor v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6450.
    Ross v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6467.
    Tiggs v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6476.
    Carver v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6493.
    Smith v. Dorsey, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6499.
    Wells v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6503.
    Romero-Reyna v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6520.
    LaRocco v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6549.
    Kinnell v. Saffels, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6664.
    Quimby v. McMackin, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6665.
    Rodman v. Wilson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6672.
    Faughn v. Campbell.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6674.
    Brown v. Bi-State Development et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6676.
    Bynum v. Anderson, Chief Judge.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6678.
    Williams v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6681.
    Powell v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6682.
    Gray v. City of Houston et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6684.
    Northard v. Nagle, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6687.
    Mazo v. Newsome, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6697.
    Buckley v. Klevenhagen et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6698.
    Dellenbach v. Letsinger et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6703.
    Ross v. Jeffes et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6706.
    Berbick v. Provident National Bank et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6711.
    Allison v. Ohio Disciplinary Counsel.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6712.
    Thomas v. Cowley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6713.
    Brooke v. California (two cases).
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6714.
    Williams v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6720.
    Francois v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6721.
    Brown v. Virginia Employment Commission et al.
   Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6723.
    Gallagher v. Morrow County Law Library Assn. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6732.
    Morovitz v. Morovitz.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6734.
    Johnson v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6738.
    Lee v. Hudson.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6742.
    Noheart v. Riveland, Secretary, Washington Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6744.
    Lightsey v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6749.
    R. J. v. Kahn.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6751.
    Williams v. LeCureux, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6752.
    Ballard v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6755.
    Sindram v. Ahalt, Judge, Circuit Court of Prince George’s County, Maryland, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6756.
    O. M. v. District of Columbia et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6759.
    Leonard v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6761.
    Sakovich v. St. Mary’s Hospital et al.
   App. Ct. 111., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6763.
    Craig v. McCarthy, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6766.
    Outlaw v. O’Leary, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6768.
    Brown v. Clanton et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6770.
    Ana Leon T. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6771.
    Brown v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6772.
    Brandon v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6773.
    Geiger v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6774.
    Smith v. Quarles, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6775.
    Sivley v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6776.
    Ramseyer v. Cody, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6779.
    Herndon v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6784.
    Harvey v. McHugh et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6789.
    Batten v. Watts Cycle & Marine, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6790.
    Gaines v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6791.
    Lopez v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6796.
    Lodhi v. State Board of Law Examiners et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6799.
    Bengiovanni v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6800.
    Borelli v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6802.
    Wester v. Maricopa County Superior Court.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6803.
    Heimberger v. Rees et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6806.
    Harrell v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6807.
    Hope v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6808.
    Jaxon v. Circle K Corp. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6809.
    Knox v. Butler, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6810.
    Lewis v. Moody, Superintendent, Wildwood Correctional Center.
   Ct. App. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6816.
    Montgomery, Individually and as Trustee of the D & R Cave Creek Trust v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6817.
    Maker v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6820.
    Buchanan v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6821.
    Covington v. Barnett, Superintendent, North Carolina Eastern Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6829.
    Wagner et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6833.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6835.
    Watts v. Foster et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6838.
    McDonald v. Yellow Cab Metro, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6845.
    Drew v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6846.
    Bailey v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6847.
    Miles v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6852.
    Rivers v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6856.
    Washington v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6857.
    Thomson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6859.
    Pedroncelli v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6867.
    Bynum v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6869.
    Justice v. Ohio et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6878.
    Baskin v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6885.
    Stoner v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6888.
    Gulati v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6890.
    Moore, aka Keener v. Buegler et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6891.
    Rivera v. Makel, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6900.
    Desire v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6911.
    Matousek v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6912.
    Taylor v. Department of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6913.
    Obregon v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6918.
    Wax v. Sullivan, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6941.
    Guerra v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6952.
    Mami v. Van Zandt, Superintendent, Hudson Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6961.
    Contreras-Espinosa et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-6973.
    Clark v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-7100.
    No. 89-5167.
    No. 89-5277.
    No. 89-5331.
    No. 89-5485.
    No. 89-5686.
    No. 89-5737.
    No. 89-6144.
    No. 89-6148.
    No. 89-6302.
    No. 89-6330.
    No. 89-6694.
    No. 89-6745.
    No. 89-7005.
    Benner v. Ohio. Sup. Ct. Ohio; Tafero v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, C. A. 11th Cir.; Demps v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir.; Alvord v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla.; Cherry v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla.; Allison v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal.; Coleman v. Saffle, Warden, et al. C. A. 10th Cir.; Prejean v. Smith, Warden, et al. (two cases). Sup. Ct. La.; Prejean v. Smith, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.; Williams v. Kemp, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.; Dickerson v. Ohio. Sup. Ct. Ohio; Gardner v. Utah. Sup. Ct. Utah; Tarver v. Alabama. Sup. Ct. Ala.; and Harris v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 89-907.
    County of Los Angeles et al. v. Cabrales.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White and Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 89-948.
    Bailey et al. v. Robinson, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robinson, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 89-1076.
    Corona v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 89-1156.
    Bath Iron Works Corp. et al. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 89-1117.
    First National Bank of Bellaire v. Huffman Independent School District et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Motion of Texas for leave to intervene granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1277.
    Superior Roll Forming Co. et al. v. InterRoyal Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioners to place Appendix D under seal granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1317.
    National Shopmen Pension Fund v. McDaniel et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir.' Motion of National Roofing Industry Pension Fund for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae, granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.