Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Jackson v. Georgia; Turley v. Missouri; Wetzel v. North Carolina, 1970 — 399 U.S. 934 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Jackson v. Georgia; Turley v. Missouri; Wetzel v. North Carolina
399 U.S. 934·Supreme Court of the United States·1970
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that Coleman v. Alabama, ante, p. 1, should be retroactive in all cases (see Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 255 (Douglas, J., dissenting)) would grant the petitions, vacate the judgments, and remand the cases for reconsideration in light of Coleman. Mr. Justice Harlan would grant the petitions for writs of certiorari, vacate judgments of the courts below, and remand cases to those courts for further consideration in light of his concurring opinion in Coleman v. Alabama, ante, p. 19. See Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 256 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
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
No. 105,
Mise.
Jackson v. Georgia. Turley v. Missouri. Wetzel v. North Carolina.
No. 219,
Mise.
No. 509,
Mise.
[MAJORITY]
Sup. Ct. Ga.;
Sup. Ct. Mo.; and
C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of Emory Community Legal Services Center for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 105, Mise., granted. Petitions for writs of certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that Coleman v. Alabama, ante, p. 1, should be retroactive in all cases (see Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 255 (Douglas, J., dissenting)) would grant the petitions, vacate the judgments, and remand the cases for reconsideration in light of Coleman. Mr. Justice Harlan would grant the petitions for writs of certiorari, vacate judgments of the courts below, and remand cases to those courts for further consideration in light of his concurring opinion in Coleman v. Alabama, ante, p. 19. See Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 256 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
Reported below: No. 105, Misc., 225 Ga. 39, 165 S. E. 2d 711; and No. 219, Misc., 442 S. W. 2d 75.