Citation22 Ill.541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004) Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner’s wife gave a tape-recorded description of the stabbing her husband was involved in. The tape was played at trial, but she did not testify. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “[W]here testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation.” ...
Search Results
Sheppard v. Maxwell
Citation22 Ill.384 U.S. 333, 6 Ohio Misc. 231, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600, 1 Med. L. Rptr. 1220 (1966) Brief Fact Summary. An individual was accused of killing his pregnant wife. The media coverage during the trial was overwhelming, to the point of being prejudicial to the defendant. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “[W]here there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will prevent a fair trial, the judge should continue the case until the threat abates, or transfer it to another county not so permeated with publicity.” Facts. On “the day of Marilyn S ...
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia
Citation22 Ill.448 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973, 6 Med. L. Rptr. 1833 (1980) Brief Fact Summary. Members of the media sought access to a courtroom during a murder trial. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “[T]he right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment; without the freedom to attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries, important aspects of freedom of speech and ‘of the press could be eviscerated.’ ” ...
United States v. Marion
CitationUnited States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S. Ct. 455, 30 L. Ed. 2d 468, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 4 (U.S. Dec. 20, 1971) Brief Fact Summary. A period of three years lapsed between the end of their crime and their indictment. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “The Sixth Amendment speedy trial provision has no application until the putative defendant in some way becomes an ‘accused.'” ...
Stack v. Boyle
CitationStack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S. Ct. 1, 96 L. Ed. 3, 1951 U.S. LEXIS 1368 (U.S. Nov. 5, 1951) Brief Fact Summary. Petitioners members of the Communist Party were charged with conspiring to teach overthrowing the government, and were unsuccessful in a motion to reduce bail. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Bail set an amount higher than that which would be reasonably calculated to assure the presence of the accused individuals at trial is excessive under the Eighth Amendment. ...
United States v. Salerno
CitationUnited States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2259, 55 U.S.L.W. 4663 (U.S. May 26, 1987) Brief Fact Summary. Respondent, Salerno, in connection with his ties to la cosa nostra, was arrested on charges of various RICO violations. This action arose when he challenged the fact that he was detained without bail. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Detention, which is regulatory, in order to keep a criminal from flight, is not impermissible pre-trial punishment. ...
Gerstein v. Pugh
CitationGerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S. Ct. 854, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 29, 19 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1499 (U.S. Feb. 18, 1975) Brief Fact Summary. A county in Florida allowed prisoners to be held for a substantial amount of time without a hearing, based solely on the decision of a prosecutor. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “Whatever procedure a State may adopt, it must provide a fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty, and this determination must be made by a judicial officer either before or ...
United States v. Hubbell
CitationUnited States v. Hubbell, 167 F.3d 552, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 942, 334 U.S. App. D.C. 315, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,219, 83 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 632 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 26, 1999) Brief Fact Summary. The defendant, Webster Hubbell (the “defendant”), asserted his privilege against self incrimination when he was subpoenaed to produce documents. The government granted him immunity but then proceeded to use the documents to obtain an indictment against him from the Grand Jury. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The government may not make derivative use of the testimonial act inherent in t ...
Pennsylvania v. Muniz
CitationPennsylvania v. Muniz, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 4885, 493 U.S. 916, 110 S. Ct. 275, 107 L. Ed. 2d 256, 58 U.S.L.W. 3258 (U.S. Oct. 16, 1989) Brief Fact Summary. A police officer found two individuals in a car parked on the side of a highway. The officer thought he smelled alcohol on one of the individual’s breath and began sobriety tests. Synopsis of Rule of Law. There is not a single rule that comes from this case. ...
Oregon v. Elstad
CitationOregon v. Elstad, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 1317, 465 U.S. 1078, 104 S. Ct. 1437, 79 L. Ed. 2d 759, 52 U.S.L.W. 3650 (U.S. Mar. 5, 1984) Brief Fact Summary. An individual was convicted of burglary. A signed confession was used to convict him. He was questioned without the benefit of Miranda warnings. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “[A] suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings.” ...
Illinois v. Perkins
CitationIll. v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 110 S. Ct. 2394, 110 L. Ed. 2d 243, 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2885, 58 U.S.L.W. 4737 (U.S. June 4, 1990) Brief Fact Summary. An undercover police agent was placed in jail with the suspect and got them to elicit incriminating statements. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Miranda warnings are not required when an undercover agent asks questions that could result in incriminating statements. ...
Oregon v. Mathiason
CitationOregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S. Ct. 711, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 38 (U.S. Jan. 25, 1977) Brief Fact Summary. An individual confessed to the police at a patrol office. after being told he was not under arrest. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “[P]olice officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has ...
Missouri v. Seibert
CitationMissouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S. Ct. 2601, 159 L. Ed. 2d 643, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4578, 72 U.S.L.W. 4634, 17 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 851, 2004 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 476 (U.S. June 28, 2004) Brief Fact Summary. Respondent, Seibert, brought appeal after she was convicted of second-degree murder based on a confession that was elicited after she had made an un-Mirandized confession. Synopsis of Rule of Law. In order to use a post-Mirandized confession, after eliciting an un-Mirandized confession, the police must give the defendant ample opportunity to consider the effect of the Miranda warni ...
Moran v. Burbine
CitationMoran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 106 S. Ct. 1135, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 32, 54 U.S.L.W. 4265 (U.S. Mar. 10, 1986) Brief Fact Summary. The police detained the respondent, Brian Burbine (the “respondent”), and the respondent waived his right to counsel. The respondent, unaware that his sister obtained counsel for him, confessed to the crime. His counsel was told by police that they were not questioning him when they actually were acquiring his confession. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Fifth Amendment constitutional rights embodied by Miranda do not require police ...
Rhode Island v. Innis
CitationRhode Island v. Innis, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 996, 440 U.S. 934, 99 S. Ct. 1277, 59 L. Ed. 2d 492 (U.S. Feb. 26, 1979) Synopsis of Rule of Law. An interrogation, for Fifth Amendment constitutional purposes, should be defined to include only words or conduct that the police should have known would reasonably influence an individual to respond. Held. The conversation was not an interrogation, and therefore the respondent’s rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (“Constitution”) were not violated. Interrogations should not be so broadly defined ...
Kuhlmann v. Wilson
CitationKuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S. Ct. 2616, 91 L. Ed. 2d 364, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 65, 54 U.S.L.W. 4809 (U.S. June 26, 1986) Brief Fact Summary. An informer planted in a suspect’s jail cell obtained incriminating information from a suspect after being told not to start the conversation, but to listen for incriminating information. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When police plant an informer with a jailed suspect and the informer does not ask questions, the suspect’s statements to the informer are admissible unless the informer took coercive steps other than listening to eli ...
Brewer v. Williams
CitationBrewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S. Ct. 1232, 51 L. Ed. 2d 424, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 64 (U.S. Mar. 23, 1977) Brief Fact Summary. The defendant, Robert Williams (the “defendant”), after being arraigned on charges of abducting a 10-year old girl, was traveling with an officer between Davenport and Des Moines, Iowa. Although the defendant’s lawyers instructed that no questioning should take place outside their presence, the defendant was convinced by the officer to give directions to the body of the girl. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Once judicial proceedings begin, the ...
Spano v. New York
CitationSPANO v. NEW YORK, 360 U.S. 315, 79 S. Ct. 1202, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1265, 1959 U.S. LEXIS 751 (U.S. June 22, 1959) Brief Fact Summary. An individual was accused of murdering another individual after the victim took his money from a bar. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “[The] petitioner’s will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue and sympathy falsely aroused, after considering all the facts in their post-indictment setting.” ...
Brown v. Mississippi
CitationBrown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 56 S. Ct. 461, 80 L. Ed. 682, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 527 (U.S. Feb. 17, 1936) Brief Fact Summary. Two individuals were convicted of murder, the only evidence of which was their own confessions that were procured after violent interrogation. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause is violated when a confession obtained via physical torture is used to convict a defendant. ...
United States v. Russell
CitationUnited States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 36 L. Ed. 2d 366, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 79 (U.S. Apr. 24, 1973) Brief Fact Summary. The Respondent, Richard Russell (the “Respondent”), manufactured methamphetamine using an essential chemical provided by an undercover federal agent. The chemical is difficult to acquire, and without the chemical it is impossible to manufacture the drug. Synopsis of Rule of Law. In order to determine whether the defense of entrapment is applicable, a subjective test should be applied that focuses on the intentions and conduct of the defe ...
Olmstead v. United States
CitationOlmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S. Ct. 564, 72 L. Ed. 944, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 694, 66 A.L.R. 376 (U.S. June 4, 1928) Brief Fact Summary. The conversations of various individuals involved in illegal liquor sales were tapped. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “A standard which would forbid the reception of evidence, if obtained by other than nice ethical conduct by government officials, would make society suffer and give criminals greater immunity than has been known heretofore. In the absence of controlling legislation by Congress, those who realize the difficulties in bringin ...
Lewis v. United States
CitationLewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 87 S. Ct. 424, 17 L. Ed. 2d 312, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 3 (U.S. Dec. 12, 1966) Brief Fact Summary. An undercover officer called an individual and lied about his identity to that individual in order to purchase drugs. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The narcotics transaction did not violate the Petitioners Fourth Amendment rights. ...
New York v. Harris
Citation495 U.S. 14, 110 S. Ct. 1640, 109 L. Ed. 2d 13 (1990) Brief Fact Summary. The police arrested an individual in his home without a warrant and he made various incriminating statements. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “[W]here the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton.” ...
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
Citation496 U.S. 444, 110 S. Ct. 2481, 110 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1990) Brief Fact Summary. The constitutionality of a sobriety check point was at issue. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The checkpoint program is consistent with the Fourth Amendment because “the balance of the State’s interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program.” ...