HARRIS v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 499 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court
HARRIS v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 499 (1963) 374 U.S. 499HARRIS v. CALIFORNIA ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA.
No. 135, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
Reported below: See 199 Cal. App. 2d 474, 18 Cal. Rptr. 708.
Petitioner pro se.
Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, and William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S., at 358, 360.
U.S. Supreme Court
HARRIS v. CALIFORNIA, 374 U.S. 499 (1963) 374 U.S. 499 HARRIS v. CALIFORNIA ET AL.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 135, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1963.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. Reported below: See 199 Cal. App. 2d 474, 18 Cal. Rptr. 708. Petitioner pro se. Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, and William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S., at 358, 360. Page 374 U.S. 499, 500
