DRUMM

v.

CALIFORNIA; MOONEY V. NEW YORK; WOMACK V. OREGON; IN RE JACOBS; IN RE DIAZ; AND IN RE TURNER

Citator

Cited By

• Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1974)
  …gments of conviction. Yet this Court has followed a consistent policy of denying applications for appointment of counsel by persons seeking to file jurisdictional statements or petitions for certiorari in this Court. See, e. g., Drumm v. California, 373 U. S. 947 (1963); Mooney v. New York, 373 U. S. 947 (1963); Oppenheimer v. California, 374 U. S. 819 (1963). In the light of these authorities, it would be odd, indeed, to read the Fourteenth Amendment to [*618] impose such a requirement on the States, and we…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Upton Pearson, Jr., 448 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1971)
  …n to use them for such purpose.” . The tools were a crowbar, hammer, screw driver and hacksaw. . Fuqua v. State, 1962, 246 Miss. 191, 145 So. 2d 152, appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 372 U.S. 709, 83 S.Ct. 1018, 10 L.Ed.2d 125, rehearing denied, 373 U.S. 947, 83 S.Ct. 1536, 10 L.Ed.2d 703; Johnson v. State, 1962, 246 Miss. 182, 145 So. 2d 156, appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 372 U.S. 702, 83 S.Ct. 1018, 10 L.Ed.2d 125 (connected case). The annotation to § 2044, Miss.Code of 1942, reveals no case wher…
• Fabian v. United States, 358 F.2d 187 (8th Cir. 1966)
  …ejudice, attributable to the number of witnesses, is untenable. A similar argument was advanced, and rejected, in Greenhill v. United States, 298 F. 2d 405 (5th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 968, 83 S.Ct. 1092, 10 L.Ed.2d 130, rehearing denied, 373 U.S. 947, 83 S.Ct. 1536, 10 L.Ed.2d 703 (1963), in which the jury returned a verdict within one hour on nine counts of mail fraud and ten counts of fraud in the sale of securities. The scheme involved in the instant case was not particularly complex, and we…