SPENCE v. NORTH CAROLINA, 392 U.S. 649 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

SPENCE v. NORTH CAROLINA, 392 U.S. 649 (1968)

392 U.S. 649

SPENCE ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 759, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1968.*

[Footnote *] Together with No. 1311, Misc., Ellison v. Texas, and No. 1823, Misc., Jackson v. Beto, Corrections Director, both on petitions for writs of certiorari. No. 1311, Misc., is to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, and No. 1823, Misc., to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Certiorari granted; No. 759, Misc., 271 N.C. 23, 155 S. E. 2d 802; No. 1311, Misc., 419 S. W. 2d 849; and No. 1823, Misc., 388 F.2d 409, vacated and remanded.

Sam Houston Clinton, Jr., for petitioner in No. 1311, Misc.

T. W. Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent in No. 759, Misc. Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Hawthorne Phillips and Lonny F. Zwiener, Assistant Attorneys General, and A. J. Carubbi, Jr., for respondent in No. 1311, Misc. Mr. Martin, Miss White, and Robert C. Flowers, Douglas H. Chilton, and Mr. Zwiener, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent in No. 1823, Misc.

PER CURIAM.

The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The

Page 392 U.S. 649, 650

judgments of the courts below are vacated and the cases remanded for reconsideration in the light of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent for reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE BLACK's dissenting opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 532.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 540.




U.S. Supreme Court

SPENCE v. NORTH CAROLINA, 392 U.S. 649 (1968)

392 U.S. 649

SPENCE ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 759, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1968.*

[Footnote *] Together with No. 1311, Misc., Ellison v. Texas, and No. 1823, Misc., Jackson v. Beto, Corrections Director, both on petitions for writs of certiorari. No. 1311, Misc., is to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, and No. 1823, Misc., to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Certiorari granted; No. 759, Misc., 271 N.C. 23, 155 S. E. 2d 802; No. 1311, Misc., 419 S. W. 2d 849; and No. 1823, Misc., 388 F.2d 409, vacated and remanded.

Sam Houston Clinton, Jr., for petitioner in No. 1311, Misc.

T. W. Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent in No. 759, Misc. Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Hawthorne Phillips and Lonny F. Zwiener, Assistant Attorneys General, and A. J. Carubbi, Jr., for respondent in No. 1311, Misc. Mr. Martin, Miss White, and Robert C. Flowers, Douglas H. Chilton, and Mr. Zwiener, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent in No. 1823, Misc.

PER CURIAM.

The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The

Page 392 U.S. 649, 650

judgments of the courts below are vacated and the cases remanded for reconsideration in the light of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent for reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE BLACK's dissenting opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 532.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 540.

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.