ROLLERSON
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1969-04-07
No. 1425
Mr. Justice Fortas concurs in the disposition of this case but notes that the Court’s action does not imply any view as to the merits of any of the petitioner’s claims including his assertions as to double jeopardy., Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent.
394 U.S. 575 Supreme Court of the United States (1969) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 22 L. Ed. 2d 557 · 89 S. Ct. 1300 · SCDB 1968-079 · 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1977
Cited by 20 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for further consideration in light of Kaufman v. United States, ante, p. 217.

Mr. Justice Fortas concurs in the disposition of this case but notes that the Court’s action does not imply any view as to the merits of any of the petitioner’s claims including his assertions as to double jeopardy.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Watson v. United States, 439 F.2d 442 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
    …panying notes 21-26 supra. Of course, the constitutional claim may, since this court refuses to rule on it, now be raised by collateral attack. Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217, 89 S.Ct. 1068, 22 L.Ed.2d 227 (1969); Rollerson v. United States, 394 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1300, 22 L.Ed.2d 557 (1969), reversing 132 U.S.App.D.C. 10, 405 F. 2d 1078 (1968). Furthermore, the majority opinion, by refusing to rule on appellant’s strongest defenses because it finds that they were not properly raised by his counsel,…
  • United States v. Buonomo, 441 F.2d 922 (7th Cir. 1971)
    …37, 838-839, and cases there cited, cert. den. 381 U.S. 902, 85 S.Ct. 1446, 14 L.Ed.2d 284. As the court said in Rollerson v. United States of America, 1968, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 10, 405 F. 2d 1078, 1081, (judgment vacated and remanded on other grounds 394 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1300, 22 L.Ed.2d 557) the Trial Judge should be alerted to the possible superfluity of the impending [*925] trial so that if the claim proved to have merit the time and effort of a trial might have been saved. As defendant is relying solel…
  • United States ex rel. Leo Anthony DiGIANGIEMO v. Regan, 528 F.2d 1262 (2d Cir. 1975)
    …son v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 10, 405 F. 2d 1078 (1968), a double jeopardy claim was held not to be cognizable for the first time in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, absent an explanation of why it was not raised earlier. On certiorari, 394 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1300, 22 L.Ed.2d 557 (1969), the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for “further consideration in light of Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217, 89 S.Ct. 1068, 22 L.Ed.2d 227.” On remand, the district court found that “there was…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw