HUNTER v. TENNESSEE
No. 5085.
Decided June 28, 1971
Together with No. 5098, Harris v. Tennessee; No. 5101, Houston et al. v. Tennessee, and No. 5103, Hunter et al. v. Tennessee, also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same court.
Per Curiam.
The motions for. leave to proceed in forma ■pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.
After a joint trial in the state courts of Tennessee, petitioners were convicted of rape and sentenced to death. While their appeals were pending in the Tennessee Supreme Court, this Court 'announced its decision in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968)! Petitioners sought to supplement their bills of exceptions to raise issues' under that decision, but they were precluded from doing so by the provisions of former Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-111 (1955), which as it then stood prohibited the filing of bills of exceptions more than 90 days after judgment. The .Tennessee Supreme Court therefore affirmed petitioners’ convictions and sentences without considering the possible effect of Witherspoon. 222 Tenn. 672, 440 S. W. 2d 1 (1969). While the petitions for certiorari were pending in this Court, the Tennessee Legislature amended § 27-111 to authorize the state appellate courts to order the filing of. bills of exceptions in criminal cases at ány time, for good cause shown. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-111 (Supp. 1970). With matters in this posture, we believe that sound judicial administration requires us to vacate the judgments below and remand the cases to the Tennessee Supreme Court so as to afford petitioners an opportunity to apply to that court under the new Tennessee statute for leave to supplement .their bills of exceptions. In so doing we, of course, intimate no view on the merits of petitioners’ contentions or as to the applicability of the new Tennessee statute to these cases.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.