BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN ET AL. v. O'CONNELL ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 158. Argued January 14, 1969.-Decided May 26, 1969.* No. 158, 391 F. 2d 156; No. 172, 391 F. 2d 289, vacated and remanded. Arnold B. Elkind argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners in No. 158. David Leo Uelmen argued the cause for petitioners in No. 172. With him on the briefs were David Previant, John J. Naughton, James P. Reedy, and Gerry M. Miller. · Lee Leibik argued the cause for respondents in each case. With him on the briefs was Ruth Weyand. Harold A. Ross filed briefs for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers as amicus curiae urging reversal in both cases. Harold C. Heiss filed a brief for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen as amicus curiae urging affirmance in both cases. PER CURIAM. The judgments are vacated and the cases are remanded to the respective district courts with instructions to dismiss the cases as moot. *Together with No. 172, Dirks et al. v. Birkholz et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 395 U.S. May 26, 1969. SHAW v. CALIFORNIA. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 1245. Decided May 26, 1969. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Irving A. Kanarek for appellant. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. LOPO v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 1257. Decided May 26, 1969. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Robert E. Dunne for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. May 26, 1969. EVERHARDT ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS ET AL. 395 U.S. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. No. 1284. Decided May 26, 1969. 253 La. 285, 217 So. 2d 400, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. William F. Wessel for appellants. Alvin J. Liska for appellees. John A. Eckler filed a brief for the American Motorcycle Assn. as amicus curiae. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. Opinion of the Court. JENKINS v. DELAWARE. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE. No. 748. Argued March 5, 1969.-Decided June 2, 1969. The standards which this Court established in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, for determining the admissibility into evidence of in-custody statements do not apply to persons whose retrials have commenced after the date of that decision if their original trials had begun before that date. Cf. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719. Pp. 213-222. Del. —, 240 A. 2d 146, affirmed. Henry N. Herndon, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Jay H. Conner, Deputy Attorney General of Delaware, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent. A brief as amicus curiae urging reversal was filed for Henry A. Vigliano. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Amy Juviler, Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief for the Attorney General of New York as amicus curiae urging affirmance. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. In Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966), we held that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), "applies only to cases in which the trial began after the date of our [Miranda] decision 384 U. S., at 721. In this case, we must decide whether Miranda's standards for determining the admissibility of in-custody statements apply to post-Miranda retrials1 of cases 1 The word "retrial" is used in this opinion to refer only to a subsequent trial of a defendant whose original trial for the same conduct commenced prior to June 13, 1966, the day on which Miranda was announced. Opinion of the Court. 2 395 U.S. originally tried prior to that decision. We hold that they do not. Petitioner was arrested on the morning of March 17, 1965, as a murder suspect, and was interrogated on three separate occasions, at 11:30 a. m., 2:50 p. m., and 7:05 p. m. Although indigent, he was not advised that he had the right to have an attorney present at the State's expense. Approximately 10 minutes after the evening interrogation began, petitioner gave the police a statement in which he admitted struggling with the victim during a burglary the preceding evening. Petitioner's first trial commenced on January 13, 1966. He did not take the stand, but his incriminating statement was admitted into evidence. The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree and burglary in the fourth degree. Disregarding the jury's recommendation, the trial court sentenced him to death. During the pendency of petitioner's appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware, we decided Miranda and Johnson. In reversing petitioner's conviction on various state grounds, the Delaware Supreme Court also determined, sua sponte, that under Johnson petitioner's statement, which was obtained without fully advising him of his constitutional rights, would be admissible at his retrial. Del. 230 A. 2d 262 (1967). It reasoned that the retrial would be a mere continuation of the case originally commenced prior to our decision in Miranda. Petitioner's second trial began on October 2, 1967. He was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed, again rejecting petitioner's argument that under Johnson his incriminating statement was inadmissible at his retrial. Del. · Del., 240 A. 2d 146 (1968). Because 2 Petitioner's remaining contentions have been adequately resolved by the court below. See Jenkins v. State, 262 (1967), and Jenkins v. State, Del. Del., 230 A. 2d 240 A. 2d 146 (1968). |