HUNT v. CONNECTICUT, 392 U.S. 304 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

HUNT v. CONNECTICUT, 392 U.S. 304 (1968)

392 U.S. 304

HUNT v. CONNECTICUT.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT.
No. 117, Misc.
Decided June 10, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 154 Conn. 517, 227 A. 2d 69, vacated and remanded.

James W. Marshall for petitioner.

David B. Salzman for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut 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 BLACK dissents.

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).

Page 392 U.S. 304, 305




U.S. Supreme Court

HUNT v. CONNECTICUT, 392 U.S. 304 (1968)

392 U.S. 304

HUNT v. CONNECTICUT.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT.
No. 117, Misc.
Decided June 10, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 154 Conn. 517, 227 A. 2d 69, vacated and remanded.

James W. Marshall for petitioner.

David B. Salzman for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut 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 BLACK dissents.

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).

Page 392 U.S. 304, 305

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.