BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 278 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court Reports
BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 278 (1967) 386 U.S. 278BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 57, Misc.
Decided March 13, 1967.
237 Cal. App. 2d 695, 47 Cal. Rptr. 136, vacated and remanded.
Appellant pro se.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack K. Weber, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART would vacate the judgment and remand for reconsideration in light of the views stated in his opinion concurring in the result in Chapman v. California, ante, at 42.
U.S. Supreme Court Reports
BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. 278 (1967) 386 U.S. 278 (1967) 386 U.S. 278 386 U.S. 278"> BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA.APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 57, Misc.
Decided March 13, 1967.
237 Cal. App. 2d 695, 47 Cal. Rptr. 136, vacated and remanded. Appellant pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack K. Weber, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18. MR. JUSTICE STEWART would vacate the judgment and remand for reconsideration in light of the views stated in his opinion concurring in the result in Chapman v. California, ante, at 42. Page 386 U.S. 278, 279
