LOPINSON v. PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 1133.
Decided June 17, 1968.
Lester J. Schaffer for petitioner in No. 1133, and Howard M. Nazor and Gordon L. Nazor for petitioner in No. 1700, Mise.
Michael J. Rotko and Arlen Specter for respondent in No. 1133; Mr. Rotko, William H. Wolf, Jr., and Mr. Specter for respondent in No. 1095, Mise.; and Joseph E. Mahoney for respondent in No. 1700, Mise.
Together with No. 1095, Misc., Coyle v. Pennsylvania; and No. 1700, Misc., Pruett v. Ohio, both on petitions for writs of certiorari. No. 1095, Misc., is to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and No. 1700, Misc., to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Per Citriam.
The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 1095, Misc., and No. 1700, Misc., are granted and the petitions for writs of certiorari in all three cases are granted. Without reaching the petitioners’ other claims, the judgments are vacated and the cases remanded for reconsideration in the light of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the 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.
case did not arise on cert or cert not granted federal court conflict federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question putative conflict conflict between federal court and state court state court conflict federal court confusion or uncertainty state court confusion or uncertainty federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty to resolve important or significant question to resolve question presented no reason given other reason