BALDONADO
v.
CALIFORNIA; MOYA V. CALIFORNIA; AND DUNCAN V. CALIFORNIA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court granted limited review of two questions regarding the petitioner's right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Petitioner sought review of his capital offense trial, raising concerns about publicity and the presence of jurors with pre-existing opinions of guilt…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Voir Dire Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
Motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petitions for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California granted limited to the following questions:
1. Was petitioner's right to the trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the XIV Amendment violated in view of the conduct of the District Attorney, the resulting publicity, and the other circumstances under which the trial was held?
2. Was there a violation of petitioner’s right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the XIV Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, where in a trial of a capital offense by jury, the trial court permitted to remain in the jury box and sit in judgment, three jurors who had entered the jury box with fixed opinion as to petitioner’s guilt, and retained such opinions while being examined on voir dire?
Cases transferred to the appellate docket. The orders of Mr. Justice Douglas of June 10, 1960, staying the execution of the death sentences are continued pending the issuance of the mandates of this Court.
Reported below: No. 1071, Misc., 53 Cal. 2d 824, 350 P. 2d 115; No. 1074, Misc., 53 Cal. 2d 819, 350 P. 2d 112; No. 1075, Misc., 53 Cal. 2d 803, 350 P. 2d 103.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. Schnettler, 365 U.S. 381 (U.S. 1961)…istrict Court granted the motion and dismissed the action. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 275 F. 2d 932. To consider petitioner’s claim that the judgment is repugnant to controlling rules and decisions of this Court, we granted certiorari. 363 U. S. 840. We have concluded that the action was properly dismissed and that the judgment must be affirmed. Although the complaint alleged that the arrest was made without a warrant, there was no allegation that it was made without probable cause. In the ab…
-
Duncan v. Iverne E. Carter, 299 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1962)…Cal.2d 803, 3 Cal. Rptr. 351, 350 P. 2d 103. Mrs. Duncan then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The petition was granted, limited to the two questions set out below. Baldonado v. California (Duncan v. California), 363 U.S. 840, 80 S.Ct. 1639, 4 L.Ed.2d 1735.2 On May 22, 1961, that court entered a per curiam opinion, sub nom. Baldonado v. California, 366 U.S. 417, 81 S.Ct. 1355, 6 L.Ed.2d 380, reading as follows: “After hearing oral argument and on due examination of the…