McCrary v. Indiana

Supreme Court

McCrary v. Indiana

364 U.S. 277, 80 S. Ct. 1410, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1706, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 768

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 27, 1960

Docket417 M

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 364 U.S. 277 (McCrary v. Indiana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCrary v. Indiana, 364 U.S. 277, 80 S. Ct. 1410, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1706, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 768 (1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the writ of certiorari are granted. Petitioner’s attempted appeal to the Supreme Court of Indiana from a denial of relief in a post-conviction coram nobis proceeding was dismissed because of his failure to comply with rules of that court, requiring, inter alia, the filing of a transcript of the trial proceedings. He alleges that the dismissal denied him the equal protection of the laws because he was and is unable to pay for the preparation of such a transcript, see Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, and that although he attempted to avail himself of the services of the Indiana Public Defender, who is empowered to secure the preparation of such a transcript in paupers’ cases, see Burris’ Indiana Stats. (1956 Repl.), § 13-1401 et seg., that officer declined to assist him. The record before us does not disclose whether these allegations were made to, and passed on by, the Indiana Supreme Court in light of Griffin v. Illinois, supra. Accordingly we vacate the order of dismissal and remand the case to it for further consideration of the appeal.

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

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the writ of certiorari are granted. Petitioner’s attempted appeal to the Supreme Court of Indiana from a denial of relief in a post-conviction coram nobis proceeding was dismissed because of his failure to comply with rules of that court, requiring, inter alia, the filing of a transcript of the trial proceedings. He alleges that the dismissal denied him the equal protection of the laws because he was and is unable to pay for the preparation of such a transcript, see Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, and that although he attempted to avail himself of the services of the Indiana Public Defender, who is empowered to secure the preparation of such a transcript in paupers’ cases, see Burris’ Indiana Stats. (1956 Repl.), § 13-1401 et seg., that officer declined to assist him. The record before us does not disclose whether these allegations were made to, and passed on by, the Indiana Supreme Court in light of Griffin v. Illinois, supra. Accordingly we vacate the order of dismissal and remand the case to it for further consideration of the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 U.S. 277, 80 S. Ct. 1410, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1706, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccrary-v-indiana-scotus-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack