Contracts · MBE-tested
COFIELD v. UNITED STATES
360 U.S. 472·Supreme Court of the United States·1959
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent, believing that this case should not be disposed of without plenary consideration.
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
COFIELD v. UNITED STATES.
No. 677, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1959.
William F. McKenna for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General ■ Wilkey and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
In view of all the circumstances under which this defendant entered a plea of guilty and the plea was accepted, the petition is granted and the sentence is vacated and the cause remanded with instructions to allow petitioner to withdraw his plea of guilty and plead anew.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent, believing that this case should not be disposed of without plenary consideration.