Phillips v. California

386 U.S. 212 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1967-02-27 Docket No. 684 English

Judges Mr. Justice Black and'Mr. Justice Clark are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra.; Mr. Justice Harlan would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45.

Delivered by Per Curiam.

Majority

p. 212

PHILLIPS et vir v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 684,

Mise.

Decided February 27, 1967.

Appellants pro se.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The •judgment is reversed. Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18.

Mr. Justice Black and'Mr. Justice Clark are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra.

Mr. Justice Harlan would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45.