Chapman v. California

Supreme Court

Chapman v. California

383 U.S. 956

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided March 28, 1966·No. No. 875·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion for leave to proceed-m forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari granted, limited to the following questions:

"Where there is a violation of the rule of Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, (1) can the error be held to be [957] harmless, and (2) if so, was the error harmless in this case?”

Morris Lavine for petitioners. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

Case transferred to the appellate docket.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion for leave to proceed-m forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari granted, limited to the following questions:

"Where there is a violation of the rule of Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, (1) can the error be held to be [957] harmless, and (2) if so, was the error harmless in this case?”

Morris Lavine for petitioners. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

Case transferred to the appellate docket.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.

Chapman v. California, 383 U.S. 956 (1966).

Pincite

383 U.S. 956 (Chapman v. California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related