BLAIR v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 582 (1964)
BLAIR v. OHIO. U.S. Supreme Court
BLAIR v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 582 (1964)
378 U.S. 582
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 699, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Theodore R. Saker for appellant.
Lynn B. Griffith, Jr. for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
U.S. Supreme Court
McLEOD v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 582 (1964) 378 U.S. 582 McLEOD v. OHIO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 14, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
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 remanded to the Supreme Court of Ohio for consideration in light of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissent for the reasons assigned in the dissenting opinion in Massiah v. United States, supra, at 207.
U.S. Supreme Court
BLAIR v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 582 (1964)
378 U.S. 582 BLAIR v. OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 699, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Theodore R. Saker for appellant.
Lynn B. Griffith, Jr. for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
Page 378 U.S. 582, 583
U.S. Supreme Court
McLEOD v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 582 (1964) 378 U.S. 582 McLEOD v. OHIO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 14, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
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 remanded to the Supreme Court of Ohio for consideration in light of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissent for the reasons assigned in the dissenting opinion in Massiah v. United States, supra, at 207.
