In sum, we do not think that Congress meant to limit Exemption 6 to a narrow class of files containing only a discrete kind of personal information. Rather, "[t]he exemption [was] intended to cover detailed Government records on an individual which can be identified as applying to that individual." H. R. Rep. No. 1497, supra, at 11. When disclosure of information which applies to a particular individual is sought from Government records, courts must determine whether release of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of that person's privacy."

The citizenship information sought by respondent satisfies the "similar files" requirement of Exemption 6, and petitioners' denial of the request should have been sustained upon a showing by the Government that release of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Court of Appeals expressly declined to con

'This view of Exemption 6 was adopted by the Attorney General shortly after enactment of the FOIA in a memorandum explaining the meaning of the Act to various federal agencies:

"It is apparent that the exemption is intended to exclude from the disclosure requirements all personnel and medical files, and all private or personal information contained in other files which, if disclosed to the public, would amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of the privacy of any person." Attorney General's Memorandum on the Public Information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act 36 (June 1967) (emphasis added).

'This construction of Exemption 6 will not render meaningless the threshold requirement that information be contained in personnel, medical, and similar files by reducing it to a test which fails to screen out any information that will not be screened out by the balancing of private against public interests. As petitioners point out, there are undoubtedly many Government files which contain information not personal to any particular individual, the disclosure of which would nonetheless cause embarrassment to certain persons. Information unrelated to any particular person presumably would not satisfy the threshold test.

'In holding that "similar files" are limited to those containing intimate details about individuals such as might also be contained in personnel or medical files, the Court of Appeals relied on its decision in Simpson v. Vance, 208 U. S. App. D. C. 270, 648 F. 2d 10 (1980). In Simpson, the

sider the effect of disclosure upon the privacy interests of Behzadnia and Yazdi, and we think that such balancing should be left to the Court of Appeals or to the District Court on remand. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE O'CONNOR concurs in the judgment.

Court of Appeals held that portions of the State Department's Biographical Register could not be considered a "similar file" because such information was currently available to the public. Id., at 275, 648 F. 2d, at 15. At the same time, Simpson held that release of information pertaining to an individual's marital status and the name of the individual's spouse "would not be appropriate." Id., at 277, 648 F. 2d, at 17. Respondent contends that information concerning the citizenship of Behzadnia and Yazdi likewise cannot be withheld as contained in "similar files" because United States citizenship is a matter of public record.

Even under the Court of Appeals' holding in Simpson, however, the fact that citizenship is a matter of public record somewhere in the Nation cannot be decisive, since it would seem almost certain that the information concerning marital status that was withheld in Simpson would likewise be contained in public records. In addition, "personnel" files, which expressly come within Exemption 6, are likely to contain much information that is equally a matter of public record. Place of birth, date of birth, marital status, past criminal convictions, and acquisition of citizenship are some examples. The public nature of information may be a reason to conclude, under all the circumstances of a given case, that the release of such information would not constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," but it does not militate against a conclusion that files are "similar" to personnel and medical files.

FINLEY, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS v. MURRAY

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 80-2205. Argued April 21, 1982-Decided May 17, 1982 Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 634 F. 2d 365.

Scott A. Mayer argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Joan S. Cherry.

John S. Elson, by appointment of the Court, 454 U. S. 1096, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.*

PER CURIAM.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

*Sybille Fritzsche filed a brief for the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

Syllabus

HOPPER, CORRECTIONS COMMISSIONER, ET AL. v.

EVANS

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 80-1714. Argued March 24, 1982-Decided May 24, 1982

Respondent was convicted in an Alabama state court of the capital offense of an intentional killing during a robbery, and was sentenced to death. At the time of respondent's trial, an Alabama statute precluded jury instructions on lesser included offenses in capital cases. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on automatic appeal. Subsequently, habeas corpus proceedings were brought in Federal District Court seeking to have the conviction set aside on the ground, inter alia, that respondent had been convicted and sentenced under a statute that unconstitutionally precluded consideration of lesser included offenses. The District Court denied relief. Pending an appeal, the Alabama statute precluding lesser included offense instructions in capital cases was invalidated in Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625. The Court of Appeals then reversed the District Court, concluding that Beck v. Alabama meant that the Alabama preclusion clause so "infected" respondent's trial that he must be retried so that he might have the opportunity to introduce evidence of some lesser included offense.

Held: The Alabama preclusion clause did not prejudice respondent in any way, and he is not entitled to a new trial, where his own evidence negates the possibility that a lesser included offense instruction might have been warranted. The Court of Appeals misread Beck v. Alabama, which held that due process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instruction. Here, the evidence not only supported the claim that respondent intended to kill the victim but affirmatively negated any claim that he did not intend to kill the victim. Accordingly, an instruction on the offense of unintentional killing was not warranted. Pp. 610-614. 628 F.2d 400 and 639 F. 2d 221, reversed.

BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 614.

Edward E. Carnes, Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the

briefs were Charles Graddick, Attorney General, and Susan Beth Farmer, Assistant Attorney General.

John L. Carroll argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Steven Alan Reiss.

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to determine whether, after invalidation of a state law which precluded instructions on lesser included offenses in capital cases, a new trial is required in a capital case in which the defendant's own evidence negates the possibility that such an instruction might have been warranted.

I

A

Shortly after respondent was released on parole from an Indiana prison in 1976, he and Wayne Ritter, who had been a fellow inmate, embarked on what respondent himself described as a cross-country crime "spree." App. 9. According to respondent's testimony, they committed about 30 armed robberies, 9 kidnapings, and 2 extortion schemes in seven different States during a 2-month period. Respondent testified that on January 5, 1977, he and Ritter entered a pawnshop in Mobile, Ala., intending to rob it. Ritter asked the pawnshop owner, Edward Nassar, to show him a gun. When Nassar handed the gun to Ritter, respondent pulled his own gun and announced that he intended to rob him. Nassar dropped to his hands and knees and crawled toward his office. Respondent then shot him in the back, killing him. Nassar's two daughters, aged seven and nine, were in the pawnshop at the time of the murder.

Respondent and Ritter were captured by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Little Rock, Ark., on March 7, 1977. A gun, which was identified by ballistics tests as the weapon used to kill Nassar, was found in their motel room and the