ROBINSON v. TENNESSEE, 392 U.S. 666 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

ROBINSON v. TENNESSEE, 392 U.S. 666 (1968)

392 U.S. 666

ROBINSON v. TENNESSEE.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
No. 1625, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1968.

Certiorari granted; reversed.

Jack Greenberg, Michael Meltsner, and Anthony G. Amsterdam for petitioner.

George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; Darwin v. Connecticut, 391 U.S. 346, at 350 (concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN).

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied.

Page 392 U.S. 666, 667




U.S. Supreme Court

ROBINSON v. TENNESSEE, 392 U.S. 666 (1968)

392 U.S. 666

ROBINSON v. TENNESSEE.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
No. 1625, Misc.
Decided June 17, 1968.

Certiorari granted; reversed.

Jack Greenberg, Michael Meltsner, and Anthony G. Amsterdam for petitioner.

George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; Darwin v. Connecticut, 391 U.S. 346, at 350 (concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN).

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied.

Page 392 U.S. 666, 667

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.