*1 ante, 836; States, p. v. United No. 92. Van Allen Coventry Frame Co. Reliance Picture Inc., ante, 818; Ware, p. City Cepero Gautier, de 108, Misc. v. Rincon
No. ante, Juan, p. 9; Manager, San Cepero ante, al., et Misc. v. Puerto Rico No. p. 9; p. ante, Warden, Taylor, Misc. Moore
No. Secretary Mitchell, Misc. Rich No. Labor, ante, p. 854; ante, States, v. United
No. Misc. Robinson p. 856; Cepero ante, 382, Misc. al., Rico et
No. v. Puerto denied. rehearing 9.p. Petitions for 13, 1961. November Lynum petition On for writ No. v. Illinois. 80. Court of Illinois. Considera- certiorari for certiorari accord tion of the deferred to petitioner opportunity counsel for to secure a certificate of Illinois as to herein was to rest on an intended independent state or whether decision of fed- claim, respondent’s identified second been asserted the petitioner at pages 66-67 Court of Illinois, was rendered. Cf. Herb 117.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, dissenting.
Petitioner tried and convicted for the unlawful possession narcotics, sale, dispensing and and her conviction was 2d E. affirmed, N. She seeks certiorari to review the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court, incriminating on the state *2 by ments drawn from and promises her threats were used against her at in trial Process contravention Due the Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. S. C. Rule 23(l)(f) requires peti- of this Court that a tioner seeking review court decision shall “specify stage the the first proceedings court of instance and in appellate court, at and the which, the which, questions manner to be specifica- were reviewed raised ...” no such There in the present petition; merely that the asserted Supreme Court of Illinois “overlooked the fact” that involuntary admissions competent evidence.
Respondent argues that certiorari should be denied comply Discovering peti- failure to with this Rule. that tioner had invoked the Due Process Clause requested before the Illinois this Court Respondent urges to this from Illinois. now that the Due Process Clause was not cited appeal, until that the Illinois Court does determine con- questions stitutional they specifically unless have been and trial, raised at the accordingly based on an and
law.
The of the Illinois Court does not the mention claim of involuntary admissions. It expressly rejects petitioner claim that surprised their introduction statutory proper notice and concludes with omnium-gatherum clause, have “We examined numerous allegations they other of error find that are of insuffi- justify cient merit to further say discussion. Suffice toit the entire that, the defendant received a fair proved beyond guilty reasonable doubt.” rehearing, assigning A the admission of the citing as error and statements Brown v. Mississippi, 297 An abstract opinion. was denied without were the admissions record indicates trial court the Due not show whether trial but does objected today This defers was invoked. Process Clause clarification petition pending consideration of process due Illinois Court whether on merits issue was based or basis of state The constitutional for this Court’s review judgments Supremacy derives Clause of VI, statutorily Article enforced the famous 25 of § Judiciary First C. Act, (1789), Stat. now U. S. *3 judgment if a state rests on Accordingly, adequate, this Court is law, sinqe to its decision power judgment, review the of Murdock the federal issue could not affect the result. Pitcairn, 634-635; Wall. Herb v. Memphis, 590, 20 judicial 324 125-126. opinions Since mathematically language formulated and the dubieties of they are, particular are what a a opinion of state court judgment sometimes raises solid doubt whether a an adequate, independent rest on state claim was federal not nec essary judgment. the challenged right to Lest a federal properly through reviewable here be lost ambiguity, such procedure this Court has utilized the holding opportunity here until an appro has been afforded for priate by the certificate state court for clarification of the e., i. ambiguity, unambiguously to make clear that adjudicated has not claim federal but rests state See Herb v. supra, S., 324 at U. 334 S. 804. U. awaiting this Instead of a pro initiation of such cedure, jurisdictions some counsel on their own initia a certificate from their tive secure tribunal, brought leave no doubt before case is here that it
911 right. does turn on a claim of a federal See Herb v. Pit cairn, Hanan, supra, Honeyman U. S., Whitney California, S. 14, 18; U. 360-361. case, however, procedure either such a for clarifica- play does not come into when the state court the case reviewed does not mention the federal when counsel make no assertion that the judgment was based on a determination issue, an adequate ground and when law affords the disposition below. On full canvass our jurisdiction in this of cases, long ago class the Court not so made this authoritative pronouncement: undertake may
“Before we
to review a
decision
the court of a
appear affirmatively
State must
not
federal
presented
highest
decision to the
court of the
that its
State
decision of the
to the determination
Honeyman
Hanan,
cause.”
(1937).
Thus, when
no opinion
the state
writes
and from
the record it
cannot be said that
an based on
non-federal ground, this Court will
*4
jurisdiction.
Nierstheimer,
take
Woods v.
328 U.
211, 214-216;
Ragen,
White v.
Bank, 288-289, 409 Ill. N. E. Cosper, interferes with the It business —indeed is not our of our business— time for the conduct effective use of our to find out whether excavating records a, lurks in record or other somehow Rule, has not required our own although counsel, in the where place our record called attention I see circumstances, forth. set these unequivocally of Illinois to Court asking no reason for not call clarification. clarify something for order. join This constrains me not to Stradford, Rogers for G. petitioner. Jewel William Clark, Attorney respondent. for General Douglas et al. Certiorari,
No. 476. California. ante, p. 815, Motion Court California. appointment for of counsel denied. Company Pennsyl
No. 400. Central Railroad Pennsylvania. Appeal vania of Pennsylvania. Further consideration of the postponed hearing Roy case on the merits. J. appellant. for David Keefer Stahl, Attorney George Pennsylvania, General of W. Keitel, Deputy Attorney appellee. General, Commissioner Internal Revenue Bilder, Executrix. C. A. 3d Cir. granted. Certiorari Cox, Solicitor General Assistant Attorney Ober- General dorfer, Henry I. Kutz and Joseph Kovner petitioner.