Brown v. Allen/Concurrence Jackson
Mr. Justice JACKSON concurs in this result for the reasons stated in a separate opinion.

Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Clark adhere to their position as stated in Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, at 219.  They believe that the nature of the proceeding upon a petition for certiorari is such that, when the reasons for a denial of certiorari are not stated, the denial should be disregarded in passing upon a subsequent application for relief, except to note that this source of possible relief has been exhausted.

They join in the judgment of the Court in these cases and they concur in the opinion of the Court except insofar as it may contain, in Part II, Subdivision A (pp. 456-457), or elsewhere, any indication that, although the reasons for a denial of certiorari be not stated, those reasons nevertheless may be inferred from the record.  They also recognize the propriety of the considerations to which Mr. Justice Frankfurter invites the attention of a federal court when confronted with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under the circumstances stated.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter 

The course of litigation in these cases and their relevant facts are set out in Mr. Justice Reed's opinion.  This opinion is restricted to the two general questions which must be considered before the Court can pass on the specific situations presented by these cases.  The two general problems are these:

I.  The legal significance of a denial of certiorari, in a case required to be presented here under the doctrine of Darr v. Burford, 339, U.S. 200, when an application for a writ of habeas corpus thereafter comes before a district court.

II.  The bearing that the proceedings in the state courts should have on the disposition of such an application in a district court. 

Notes