PEA v. UNITED STATES, 378 U.S. 571 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
PEA v. UNITED STATES, 378 U.S. 571 (1964) 378 U.S. 571PEA v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 930, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
Reported below: 116 U.S. App. D.C. 410, 324 F.2d 442.
Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr. for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome Nelson for the United States.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court in Jackson v. Denno, ante, p. 368.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Jackson v. Denno, supra.
U.S. Supreme Court
PEA v. UNITED STATES, 378 U.S. 571 (1964) 378 U.S. 571 PEA v. UNITED STATES.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 930, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. Reported below: 116 U.S. App. D.C. 410, 324 F.2d 442. Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr. for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome Nelson for the United States. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court in Jackson v. Denno, ante, p. 368. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Jackson v. Denno, supra. Page 378 U.S. 571, 572
