No. 86-5880. LEMMONS v. CALIFORNIA. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied. No. 86-5889. denied. No. 86-5900. C. A. 5th Cir. 502. No. 86-5930. BOYD v. OHIO. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari ATWELL v. BLACKBURN, WARDEN, ET AL. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 800 F. 2d GRANADO v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F.2d 91. No. 86-5952. TRUNZO v. OHIO. Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied. No. 86-5974. OWENS v. QUINLAN ET AL. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6009. GREGG v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 803 F. 2d 568. No. 86-6057. ROJAS v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer tiorari denied. Reported below: 805 F. 2d 392. No. 86-6067. NUNLEY v. JOHNSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6179. MATTHEWS v. SCULLY, WARDEN, ET AL. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6180. BURNS v. TRICKEY. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6184. ROSARIO v. THOMAS. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6185. VINCENT v. BROWN, JUDGE. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6190. CRAIG v. Fleming et AL. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6196. Certiorari denied. HUMPHREY v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 9th Cir. 480 U. S. No. 86-6200. March 9, 1987 STRANGE v. BROWN, WARDEN, ET AL. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6206. MAHDAVI v. SHIRANI. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6210. OLIVER V. DUGGER, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 795 F. 2d 1524. No. 86-6215. CAZARES v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 800 F. 2d 263. No. 86-6219. KOENIG v. SOLEM, WARDEN, ET AL. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 802 F. 2d 464. No. 86-6225. SHIPLEY V. UNITED STATES. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 811 F. 2d 608. No. 86-6226. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6230. C. A. Fed. Cir. 790. SIGLER v. UNITED STATES. Reported below: 803 F. 2d 716. C. A. 5th Cir. DREW v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD. No. 86-6236. STANTON v. YOUNG, SUPERINTENDENT, WAUPUN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6237. SAAR v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 801 F. 2d 392. No. 86-6238. C. A. 5th Cir. 994. ZULU, AKA ROBINSON v. BLACKBURN, WARDEN. No. 86-6246. HANNER v. MISSISSIPPI ET AL. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. No. 86-6249. HALL v. LANE, DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 804 F. 2d 79. No. 86-6252. GUNDERSON v. WISCONSIN. Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 135 Wis. 2d 544, 401 N. W. No. 86-6256. C. A. Fed. Cir. 790. HENRY v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD. No. 86-6262. MCMICHAEL v. ROUSE, SUPERINTENDENT, LANCASTER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, ET AL. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 805 F. 2d 1041. No. 86-6264. WORD v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 806 F. 2d 658. No. 86-6265. PEREZ-SANCHEZ v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 806 F. 2d 7. No. 86-6277. LANCASTER v. NEW YORK. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 69 N. Y. 2d 20, 503 N. E. 2d 990. No. 86-6280. ALLEN v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 804 F. 2d 244. No. 86-6290. FREEMAN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 808 F. 2d 1290. No. 86-6310. MENDEZ-ORTIZ v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 810 F. 2d 76. No. 86-6335. JACKSON ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 805 F. 2d 457. No. 86-6342. CAPOTE-MONTERREY V. UNITED STATES. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 807 F. 2d 996. No. 85-1813. CITY OF RENSSELAER, NEW YORK, ET AL. v. FIACCO. C. A. 2d Cir. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F.2d 319. No. 86-776. US WEST, INC. v. UNITED STATES ET AL. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. JUSTICE SCALIA took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 254 U. S. App. D. C. 415, 797 F. 2d 1082. No. 86-1126. UNITED CHURCH OF THE MEDICAL CENTER ET AL. v. ILLINOIS MEDICAL CENTER COMMISSION. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no Reported No. 86-1153. FBK REALTY CORP. v. CROTTY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Motion of Associated Builders & Owners of Greater New York Inc. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 115 App. Div. 2d 1015, 495 N. Y. S. 2d 878. No. 86-5307. WILLIAMS v. OHIO. Sup. Ct. Ohio; and No. 86-6015. BRADLEY v. ALABAMA. Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 86-5307, 23 Ohio St. 3d 16, 490 N. E. 2d 906; No. 86-6015, 494 So. 2d 772. JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting. Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, dissenting in No. 86-5307. In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected petitioner's claim that a statutory aggravating factor that repeats an element of the crime is unconstitutional because it fails to narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. This decision is consistent with Wingo v. Blackburn, 783 F. 2d 1046, 1051 (CA5 1986), cert. pending, No. 86-5026, but in conflict with Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258, 263-264 (CA8), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1013 (1985). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict. JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting. In these cases, petitioners' death sentences were founded on statutory aggravating factors that repeat elements of the underlying capital offenses. For reasons stated in Wiley v. Mississippi, 479 U. S. 906 (1986) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), I would grant the petitions for review. No. 86-5953. SCOTT v. OHIO. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 26 Ohio St. 3d 92, 497 N. E. 2d 55. MARSHALL, J., dissenting 480 U. S. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, dissenting. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury that heard the trial judge indicate that, on the basis of newspaper accounts he had read, he believed petitioner was involved in the crime. Because the judge's statement deprived petitioner of a fair trial, I would grant certiorari in this case. During voir dire, the trial judge stated to the jury: "Not only was Mr. Scott-at least from the newspaper reports that I think that I had read-was involved in this, there were three other . . . individuals who . . . ." 26 Ohio St. 3d 92, 95, 497 N. E. 2d 55, 59 (1986). Defense counsel interrupted to object to this comment on petitioner's involvement in the crime. He subsequently made a motion for a mistrial, in which the prosecutor joined. The trial court denied the motion, but delivered a cautionary instruction admonishing the jury to base its verdict only on the evidence introduced at trial. The judge also told the jury, "you must not take any impression from anything I have done or said as to what your decision should be." App. to Pet. for Cert. 26-27. The Ohio Supreme Court attempted to excuse the remark. The court insisted that "[t]he judge's comment did not concern [petitioner's] guilt or innocence, but, rather, noted the fact that the news media had reported [petitioner's] involvement with the crime." 26 Ohio St. 3d, at 96, 497 N. E. 2d, at 59. This is a ludicrous reading of the statement. How the jury could reasonably have interpreted and applied the comment determines whether it should be considered prejudicial. See, e. g., Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510, 516-519 (1979). In this case, the jury could reasonably take the comment at face value, namely, as a statement that, based on what he had read in the newspapers, the judge believed petitioner was a participant in the crime. Before the jury had even heard any of the evidence, the judge had effectively become a witness against petitioner. See United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389, 393 (1933). Moreover, even under the Ohio Supreme Court's dubious interpretation, the judge's comment deprived petitioner of a fair trial. The only legitimate judicial references to pretrial publicity would have been inquiries about exposure to pretrial publicity or warn |