CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


WALTON V. ARKANSAS, 371 U. S. 28 (1962)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 371 U. S. 28 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Walton v. Arkansas, 371 U.S. 28 (1962)

Walton v. Arkansas

No. 18, Misc.

Decided October 22, 1962

371 U.S. 28

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded for consideration in light of Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52.

Reported below: 233 Ark. 999, 350 S.W.2d 302.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.

In this capital case, the Supreme Court of Arkansas sustained petitioner's conviction against the claim, among others, that, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, his involuntary confession of the crime was introduced in evidence at the trial. Walton v. State, 350 S.W.2d 302. Petitioner contends that, independently of this claim, his conviction was unconstitutional because he was not represented by counsel at the time of his arraignment in the course of which he acknowledged the voluntariness of his confession, such acknowledgment being later used in evidence against him at the trial.

When the Arkansas Supreme Court decided this case, it did not have the benefit of this Court's decision in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52, which was rendered subsequent to the state court's decision and on the same day that it denied rehearing upon a petition filed prior chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 371 U. S. 29

to the announcement of the Hamilton case. Further, we are unable to conclude from the record filed in this Court either that petitioner had counsel at the time of the arraignment proceedings, or, if not, that he was advised of his right to have counsel at such proceedings and that he understandingly and intelligently waived that right.

In these circumstances, we conclude that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas should be vacated and the case remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, or for such other appropriate proceedings as may be available under state law for resolution of this constitutional claim.

It is so ordered.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED