McCARTY v. KANSAS, 392 U.S. 308 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court
McCARTY v. KANSAS, 392 U.S. 308 (1968)
392 U.S. 308 McCARTY ET AL. v. KANSAS.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 548, Misc.
Decided June 10, 1968.
199 Kan. 116, 427 P.2d 616; certiorari granted with respect to petitioner Boyd, judgment vacated and remanded; certiorari denied with respect to petitioner McCarty.
Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General of Kansas, and J. Richard Foth, Richard E. Oxandale, and Daniel D. Metz, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted with respect to petitioner Boyd. The judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123. See Roberts v. Russell, ante, p. 293. The petition for a writ of certiorari with respect to petitioner McCarty is denied.
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).
U.S. Supreme Court
McCARTY v. KANSAS, 392 U.S. 308 (1968)
392 U.S. 308 McCARTY ET AL. v. KANSAS.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 548, Misc.
Decided June 10, 1968.
199 Kan. 116, 427 P.2d 616; certiorari granted with respect to petitioner Boyd, judgment vacated and remanded; certiorari denied with respect to petitioner McCarty.
Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General of Kansas, and J. Richard Foth, Richard E. Oxandale, and Daniel D. Metz, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted with respect to petitioner Boyd. The judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123. See Roberts v. Russell, ante, p. 293. The petition for a writ of certiorari with respect to petitioner McCarty is denied.
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. 308, 309
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.
