MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 389 U.S. 968 (1967)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
MILLER v. CALIFORNIA , 389 U.S. 968 (1967)389 U.S. 968
Lucille MILLER, petitioner,
v.
CALIFORNIA.
No. 154.
Supreme Court of the United States
December 4, 1967
F. Lee Bailey and Alan M. Dershowitz, for petitioner.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, granted limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:
'1. Whether the introduction of
admissions made to an undercover agent planted in petitioner's jail
cell constituted a violation of petitioner's constitutional rights
to counsel and against self- incrimination.
'2. Whether inculpatory admissions,
obtained under circumstances like those here involved, can ever
constitute harmless error.'
The case is placed on the summary calendar.[ Miller v.
California 389 U.S.
968 (1967) ]
Opinions
v.
CALIFORNIA.
No. 154. Supreme Court of the United States December 4, 1967 F. Lee Bailey and Alan M. Dershowitz, for petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, granted limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:
U.S. Supreme Court
MILLER v. CALIFORNIA , 389 U.S. 968 (1967) 389 U.S. 968 Lucille MILLER, petitioner,v.
CALIFORNIA.
No. 154. Supreme Court of the United States December 4, 1967 F. Lee Bailey and Alan M. Dershowitz, for petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, granted limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:
'1. Whether the introduction of
admissions made to an undercover agent planted in petitioner's jail
cell constituted a violation of petitioner's constitutional rights
to counsel and against self- incrimination.
'2. Whether inculpatory admissions,
obtained under circumstances like those here involved, can ever
constitute harmless error.'
The case is placed on the summary calendar.[ Miller v.
California 389
U.S. 968 (1967) ]
Search This Case
