Jump to content

New Jersey v. Russo/Opinion of the Court

From Wikisource
New Jersey v. Russo
Opinion of the Court
929228New Jersey v. Russo — Opinion of the Court

United States Supreme Court

384 U.S. 889

New Jersey  v.  Russo


Raymond A. Brown and Irving I. Vogelman, for respondent Russo.

Respondent Bisignano, pro se.

Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, Alan B. Handler, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and Richard Newman and Max Spinrad, Deputy Attys. Gen., for the Attorney General of New Jersey, as amicus curiae.

Arlen Specter and Joseph M. Smith, for the District Attorney of Philadelphia County, Pa., as amicus curiae.

June 20, 1966.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of respondent Frank Bisignano, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is also granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for further proceedings in light of Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissents for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S., at 736, 86 S.Ct., at 1782, 16 L.Ed.2d, at 894.

Notes

[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse