Bostic v. United States, 402 U.S. 547 (1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Bostic v. United States, 402 U.S. 547 (1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Interest of Zoie H. (neb, 2020-01-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Interest of Zoie H.
Neb. · 2020 · confidence medium
Nebraska’s preeminent case on the issue is the pre-­McKeiver case of DeBacker v. Brainard.26 There, we considered a habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of a recently enacted statute requiring that juvenile court hearings “shall be con- ducted by the judge without a jury in an informal manner, applying the customary rules of evidence in use in civil trials without a jury in the district courts.”27 The juvenile at issue had been adjudicated delinquent for the act of forgery, a felony, and 23 McKeiver, supra note 19 , 402 U.S. at 547. 24 See, e.g., Kan.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Church of Scientology of California v. Shirley Foley (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Moreover, in Bulluck v. Washington, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 39 , 65, 468 F.2d 1096, 1122 (1972), we dissolved our order granting en banc rehearing and continued in effect the panel decision because we were equally divided on the merits 69 Burrell v. McCray, 426 U.S. 471, 472 , 96 S.Ct. 2640, 2641 , 48 L.Ed.2d 788 -789 (1976) (concurring opinion); Bostic v. United States, 402 U.S. 547, 548 , 91 S.Ct. 2174 , 29 L.Ed.2d 102, 103 (1971); Johnson v. Massachusetts, 390 U.S. 511 , 88 S.Ct. 1155 , 20 L.Ed.2d 69, 70 (1968); The Monrosa v. Carbon Black Export, Inc., 359 U.S. 180, 183 , 79 S.Ct. 710, 713 , 3 L.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Herman Bostic
v.
United States
5250.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1971.
402 U.S. 547
Thomas C. Binkley argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Philip M. Carden., Beatrice Rosenberg argued the cause for the United States. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Jerome M. Feit.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

We granted the writ of certiorari in this case [1] to consider whether the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had erred in holding that the petitioner had properly been convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in order to avoid apprehension for the robbery of a federally insured bank. The Court of Appeals purported to uphold a conviction for this offense, though there was no evidence that the petitioner knew of the plan to commit murder, and he had been confined in prison for several months prior to the date the murder was committed. [2] The[*548] memorandum for the United States in opposition to the granting of the writ urged that the petitioner was “responsible for the actions of his co-conspirators in killing one member of the group/’ and as to this issue, relied on the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

It now appears that these statements in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and in the memorandum of the United States were erroneous, and that the facts are not as we believed them to be at the time we granted the writ. The record shows that the petitioner was neither charged with nor convicted of the offense of conspiracy to commit murder. The conspiracy count on which the petitioner was convicted did not include any charge of conspiracy to murder. Indeed, in his closing argument to the jury the prosecutor stated that the petitioner had left the conspiracy prior to the murder, when he was returned to the penitentiary.

Inasmuch as our grant of the writ of certiorari in this case was predicated on the mistaken representation that the petitioner had been convicted of the offense of conspiracy to commit murder, we now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

It is so ordered.

2

424 F. 2d 951. The opinion recites that the conspiracy count on which the petitioner was convicted “alleged a conspiracy to rob federally insured banks with dangerous weapons and to commit murder to avoid apprehension for same.” 424 F. 2d, at 953. The[*548] court went on to say, “As to Bostic, although he had been returned to the penitentiary sometime before Ferguson’s murder, there is no evidence that he had renounced or withdrawn from the conspiracy.” 424 F. 2d, at 964.