Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
BALDONADO v. CALIFORNIA
366 U.S. 4176 L. Ed. 2d 380·Supreme Court of the United States·1961
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
BALDONADO v. CALIFORNIA.
No. 185.
Argued May 8, 1961.
Decided May 22, 1961.
A. L. Wirin argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners in all three cases. Burt M. Henson argued the cause and appeared on the brief for petitioner in No. 186. Arthur Warner argued the cause and appeared on the brief for petitioner in No. 187.
William E. James, Assistant Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondent in all three cases. With him on the briefs was Stanley Mosk, Attorney General. Roy A. Gustafson also appeared on the brief for respondent in No. 187.
■ Ben Margolis and Charles B. Stewart, Jr. filed a brief in No. 187 for certain California Chapters of the National Lawyers Guild, as amici curiae, urging reversal.
Together with No. 186, Moya v. California, and No. 187, Duncan v. California, also on certiorari to the same Court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
After hearing oral argument and on due examination of the records, we conclude that the totality of circumstances disclosed fails to support the substantial due process issues tendered in the petitions for certiorari, and so we dismiss the writs.