Smith v. Crouse
| Decision Date | 22 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | M,No. 915,915 |
| Citation | 84 S.Ct. 1929,12 L.Ed.2d 1039,378 U.S. 584 |
| Parties | Sidney SMITH v. Sherman H. CROUSE, Warden. isc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Sidney Smith, pro se.
William M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen. of Kansas, and J. richard Foth, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811.
In my opinion the question whether Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811, should be given retroactive application is deserving of plenary consideration. Cf. my dissenting opinion, LaVallee v. Durocher, 84 S.Ct. 1921.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lopez, In re
...423, 424-425; but see Freund, New Vistas In Constitutional Law (1964) 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 631, 637-638.8 Smith v. Crouse (1964) 378 U.S. 584, 84 S.Ct. 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (per curiam); Ruark v. State of Colorado (1964) 378 U.S. 585, 84 S.Ct. 1935, 12 L.Ed.2d 1042 (per curiam).9 Eskridge v. Wa......
-
United States v. Zirpolo, 18137-18142.
...372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed. 2d 811 (1963) (right to counsel on appeal), held retroactive in Smith v. Crouse, 378 U.S. 584, 84 S.Ct. 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1964); Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1970) (right to counsel at sentencing), held retroactive in Mc......
-
United States v. Scott
...1041 (1964) (giving retroactivity to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964)); Smith v. Crouse, 378 U.S. 584, 84 S.Ct. 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1964) (giving retroactivity to Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 2 Table D2, attached to ......
-
Schlomann v. Moseley
...persons with conscientious or religious scruples against capital punishment cannot be excluded from juries); Smith v. Crouse, Warden, 378 U.S. 584, 84 S.Ct. 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (holding that counsel must be appointed to indigents for purposes of appeal as announced in Douglas v. Californi......