SANTORO v. UNITED STATES, 392 U.S. 301 (1968)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

SANTORO v. UNITED STATES, 392 U.S. 301 (1968)

392 U.S. 301

SANTORO v. UNITED STATES
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 1219.
Decided June 10, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 388 F.2d 113, vacated and remanded.

Robert S. Bailey for petitioner.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123. See Roberts v. Russell, ante, p. 293.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissent for the reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE WHITE'S dissenting opinion in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 138 (1968).

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 392 U.S. 301, 302




U.S. Supreme Court

SANTORO v. UNITED STATES, 392 U.S. 301 (1968)

392 U.S. 301

SANTORO v. UNITED STATES
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 1219.
Decided June 10, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 388 F.2d 113, vacated and remanded.

Robert S. Bailey for petitioner.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123. See Roberts v. Russell, ante, p. 293.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissent for the reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE WHITE'S dissenting opinion in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 138 (1968).

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 392 U.S. 301, 302

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.