Petitioner's request for federal habeas corpus, on the ground
that the prosecution concealed the existence of a promise to
recommend a specific sentence or leniency for an accomplice who
testified for the State against petitioner, was rejected by the
District Court and the Court of Appeals. Thereafter, the New Jersey
Supreme Court granted petitioner's codefendant a new trial after a
court hearing on similar allegations.
Held: The case, in light of the State Supreme Court's
action, is remanded to the District Court for reconsideration,
which may include whether petitioner must first exhaust any
available state remedies.
Vacated and remanded.
PER CURIAM.
Certiorari was granted in this case on October 9, 1967. The
judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is vacated,
and the case is remanded to the District Court of New Jersey for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Petitioner sought federal habeas corpus on the ground, among
others, that, prior to his state trial, the assistant prosecutor
who handled the prosecution concealed the existence of a promise or
agreement to recommend a specific sentence or leniency for an
accomplice who testified as a State's witness against petitioner.
The District Court rejected the claim without a hearing and upon
its examination of the trial record, the record upon a motion for
new trial, and the decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at
43 N.J. 209,
203 A.2d
177. However, subsequent to the entry of the judgment of the
Court of Appeals on April 7, 1967, the Supreme Court of New Jersey,
on July 5, 1967, in a state post-conviction proceeding
Page 389 U. S. 87
brought by petitioner's codefendant Taylor, under N.J.Rev.R.
3:10A, granted Taylor a new trial after a trial court hearing on
similar allegations.
State v. Taylor, 49 N.J. 440,
231 A.2d
212. In that circumstance the judgment of the Court of Appeals
is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for
reconsideration of petitioner's claim in light of the action of the
Supreme Court of New Jersey in
State v. Taylor. The
District Court's reconsideration may include whether petitioner
should be required first to exhaust any remedy which may be
available in the state courts.
It is so ordered.