Criminal Law Commons^™

03-17-1975 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Costarelli v. Massachusetts, 421 U.S. 193 (1975)

Harry A. Blackmuns handwritten notes from oral argument.

11-19-1974 Justice Rehnquist, Per Curiam, William H. Rehnquist

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Petitioner was convicted in a Virginia state of court of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to eight years in prison. The Supreme Court of Virgina denied review and affirmed the conviction by order, and petitioner then sought federal habeas in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

11-14-1974 Correspondence From Marshall To Rehnquist, Thurgood Marshall

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Dear Bill:

Please join me in your opinion in this case.

11-05-1974 Correspondence From Powell To Rehnquist, Lewis F. Powell

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Dear Bill:

Please join me.

11-04-1974 Justice Rehnquist, Per Curiam, William H. Rehnquist

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Petitioner was convicted in a Virginia state court of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to eight years in prison. The Supreme Court of Virginia denied review and affirmed the conviction by order, and petitioner then sought federal habeas in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

11-04-1974 Correspondence From Douglas To Rehnquist, William O. Douglas

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Dear Bill:

I agreed once with your opinion in 73-5768, FRANCISCO v. GATHRIGHT. I regret only that you made it a per curiam. I hope you change your mind on that.

11-04-1974 Correspondence From Blackmun To Rehnquist, Harry A. Blackmun

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Dear Bill:

I am glad to join the per curiam you have prepared for this case.

11-01-1974 Correspondence From Brennan To Rehnquist, William J. Brennan

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Dear Bill:

I agree, but think it should be a signed opinion.

11-01-1974 Correspondence From Stewart To Rehnquist, Potter Stewart

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Dear Bill,

I agree with the Per Curiam you have circulated in this case.

10-31-1974 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Burger, William H. Rehnquist

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Dear Chief:
Although your assignment of this case to me indicated that you had tentatively determined it should be a signed opinion, the attached draft has at least the virtue of brevity, and makes little new law. I therefore suggest that if the draft becomes an opinion of the Court, it should be a per curiam rather than a signed opinion.

10-31-74 Preliminary Memorandum, Richard Blumenthal

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

The opinion seems fine, except that it does not make the point that you considered significant with respect to the effects of counsel's tactics on his client. Whether a footnote (possibly an addition to n.6) would be appropriate, I don't know. It might read: "Petitioner's claims, whatever their merit, might have been vindicated more speedily if he had sought habeas relief in the state courts rather than following the federal route.But the wisdom of that choice, whether made by him or his counsel, is not part of this case." I would recommend against including it, however.

10-18-1974 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

The opinions of all of the Justices are recorded.

10-15-1974 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes.

09-25-1974 Conference Note, Harry A. Blackmun

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

Harry A. Blackmun records answers to questions.

09-25-1974 Preliminary Memorandum, Harry A. Blackmun

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

This first case of the 1974 Tern is concerned primarily with procedure. It does involve a substantial procedural question. One problem I have with it is whether the attorney has been so interested in establishing a procedural principle that he has permitted his client to rot in jail for 16 months. He just might have been able to get a new trial in the state court had he been willing to proceed on the state side without worry or concern about the procedural principle. That, at least, is something that perhaps may be developed by questions at the oral argument.

05-28-1974 Per Curiam, William O. Douglas

Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)

On April 24, 1972, after oral argument, we granted Vermont's motion to file a complaint against New York and the International Paper Company which alleged that as a result of discharge of wastes, largely from International's mills, that company and New York are responsible for a sludge bed in Lake Champlain and Ticonderoga Creek that has polluted the water, impeded navigation, and constituted a public nuisance.

05-21-1974 Conference Notes, Unknown

Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)

I agree with WOD that the Court should decline to approve both the proposed decree and the appointment of a South Lake Master. I also think that the better suggestion is to dismiss in a per curiam explaining why no master will be appointed and the report will not be approved. If the parties are in agreement a settlement can be privately reached without court approval. The only question I have about the dismissal of the bill of complaint is where it leaves the parties. They should be free and encouraged to enter a compact or the like if they …

05-20-1974 Memorandum To The Conference, William O. Douglas

Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)

On April 24, 1972, after oral argument, we granted Vermont's motion to file a complaint against New York and the International Paper Company which alleged that as a result of discharge of wastes, largely from International's mills, that company and New York are responsible for a sludge bed in Lake Champlain and Ticonderoga Creek that has polluted the water, impeded navigation, and constituted a public nuisance. 406 U.S. 186. Issue was joined and the Honorable R. Ammi Cutter was appointed Special Master. 408 U.S. 917. Later the United States sought leave to intervene stating it had numerous interests in these …

03-28-1974 Correspondence From Brennan To Douglas, William J. Brennan

Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)

I agree with your proposed opinion in the above but suggest it be a signed rather than a Per Curiam opinion.

02-26-1974 Preliminary Memorandum, James J. Knicely

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

***A response has been filed by the State of Virginia. Petr has been given the opportunity under the USDC order in question here to proceed in state habeas on the claim referred by USDC. Petr refused to proceed, desiring to await this Court's determination in this appeal.

01-11-1974 Preliminary Memorandum, James J. Knicely

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (1974)

1. The issues are (1) whether a state prisoner who has exhausted state remedies is to be denied federal habeas relief because his claim should be resubmitted to state courts in light of an intervening State Supreme Court decision validating that claim; and (2) whether the same prisoner must await federal habeas relief on one claim pending consideration of another independent claim by the state courts.

03-20-1973 Justice Douglas, Dissenting, William O. Douglas

Associated Enterprises v. Toltec Watershed Improv. Dist. 410 U.S. 743 (1973)

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL concur, dissenting.

03-20-1973 Per Curiam, William H. Rehnquist

Associated Enterprises v. Toltec Watershed Improv. Dist. 410 U.S. 743 (1973)

In this case we are confronted with an issue similar to the one determined today in Salyer Land Company v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District.- U. S. -, Appellee ToltecWatershed Improvement District was established after referendum held pursuant to Wyoming's Watershed Improvement District Act. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-354.1 to 41-354.26. After formation, appellee sought a right of entry onto lands owned by appellant Associated Enterprises. Inc., and leased by Johnston Fuel Liners for the purpose of carrying out studies to determine the feasibility of constructing a dam and reservoir. When Associated resisted, the district sought to enforce its …

03-01-1973 Justice Douglas, Dissenting, William O. Douglas

Associated Enterprises v. Toltec Watershed Improv. Dist. 410 U.S. 743 (1973)

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR JUSTICE MARSHALL concur, dissenting.

02-26-1973 Justice Rehnquist, Per Curiam, William H. Rehnquist

Associated Enterprises v. Toltec Watershed Improv. Dist. 410 U.S. 743 (1973)

In this case we are confronted with an issue similar to the one determined today in Salyer Land Company v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District.-U. S. - Appellee Toltec Watershed Improvement District was established after referendum held pursuant to Wyoming's Watershed Improvement District Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 41-354.1 to 41-354.26. After formation. appellee sought a right of entry onto lands owned by appellant Associated Enterprise Inc. and leased by Johnston Fuel Liners for the purpose of carrying out st udies to determine the feasibility of constructing a dam and reservoir. When Associated resisted, the district sought to enforce its …

02-24-1973 Correspondence From Powell To Rehnquist, Lewis F. Powell

Associated Enterprises v. Toltec Watershed Improv. Dist. 410 U.S. 743 (1973)

Dear Bill:

Please join me in your Per Curiam.

02-21-1973 Memorandum To The Conference, Sandra Phillips

Associated Enterprises v. Toltec Watershed Improv. Dist. 410 U.S. 743 (1973)

Mr. Justice Douglas will be circulating 71-1069, Assoc. Enterprises, Inc. v. Toltec shortly.

02-15-1973 Correspondence From Stewart To Rehnquist, Potter Stewart

Associated Enterprises v. Toltec Watershed Improv. Dist. 410 U.S. 743 (1973)

Dear Bill,

I am glad to join the per curiam you have circulated in this case.

02-09-1973 Clerk Memo, Unknown

Associated Enterprises v. Toltec Watershed Improv. Dist. 410 U.S. 743 (1973)

Memo on Mr. Justice Rehnquist's proposed per curiam opinion.

01-17-1973 Justice Stewart, Dissenting, Potter Stewart

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting.