United States of America Ex Rel. James Morris Johnson v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution

387 F.2d 137, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4220
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedDecember 11, 1967
Docket15136
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 387 F.2d 137 (United States of America Ex Rel. James Morris Johnson v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States of America Ex Rel. James Morris Johnson v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, 387 F.2d 137, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4220 (3d Cir. 1967).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Following the original argument of this case this court affirmed, 349 F.2d 416, the order of the district court, 243 F.Supp. 695, granting the relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The action of the district court was based upon its conclusion that the introduction of the relator’s prior criminal record into evidence in his criminal trial in a Pennsylvania state court, as then permitted under Commonwealth v. Parker, 1928, 294 Pa. 144, 143 A. 904, was so fundamentally unfair as to deny him due process of law.

Subsequently the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed our judgment upon the authority of Spencer v. State of Texas, 1967, 385 U.S. 554,’ 87 S.Ct. 648, 17 L.Ed.2d 606, thus holding that the introduction, under the Parker rule, of the evidence of the relator’s prior convictions did not invade his constitutional rights. The cause was remanded to us by the Supreme Court “for consid *138 eration of the unresolved issues” in the case. An examination of the opinion of the district court in this case discloses that although the court noted that the relator’s trial record was not devoid of other serious questions of constitutional import, it did not decide any of them in view of its dispositive holding with respect to the evidence of prior convictions. The judgment of the district court must accordingly be reversed and the cause remanded for consideration and decision of such unresolved issues as the relator may wish to raise.

It will be so ordered.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Chapasco
258 A.2d 638 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 F.2d 137, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-james-morris-johnson-v-alfred-t-rundle-ca3-1967.