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.
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. 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.
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