카페검색 본문
카페글 본문
-
Historical Background on Right to Counsel 2023.08.28해당카페글 미리보기
the public hostility surrounding the trial, the Court concluded that the trial court’s failure to make an effective appointment of counsel was a denial of due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 The holding in...
-
Griffin v. California (Defendant has the right to remain silent even in Ct. 2023.08.25해당카페글 미리보기
be considered by the court or the jury." In conformity with this provision, the prosecutor, in his argument to the jury, emphasized that a person accused of crime in a public forum would ordinarily deny or explain the evidence against...
-
Immune from Prosecution in the US, but Amenable to Prosecution in a Foreign 2023.08.24해당카페글 미리보기
a real and substantial threat of criminal liability.13 When the testimony may be necessary to the public interest, the prosecutor may obtain a court order granting immunity.14 The grant of immunity forces the witness to either testify or...
-
Spano v New York(Distinguishes Crooker and Cicenia but follows Powell) 2023.08.21해당카페글 미리보기
a prosecutor's office, a police station, and an automobile. Throughout the night, the petitioner repeatedly asked to be allowed to send for his lawyer, and his requests were repeatedly denied. He finally was induced to make a confession...
-
Crooker v. California (no fundamental unfairness resulting from the denial) 2023.08.20해당카페글 미리보기
or prosecutor examined (the word usually chosen is 'grilled') so and so for anywhere from ten to forty-eight or more consecutive hours, going at him in relays to wear him out and break him down. They are now taken to be the established...
-
Confession in contemporary U.S. law 2023.08.18해당카페글 미리보기
the prosecutor used the otherwise inadmissible statements in an effort to impeach the defendant’s credibility. The court also limited the scope of Miranda by adopting extraordinarily narrow definitions of “custody” and “interrogation...
-
Historical Background on Right to Counsel 2023.08.18해당카페글 미리보기
the public hostility surrounding the trial, the Court concluded that the trial court’s failure to make an effective appointment of counsel was a denial of due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 The holding in...
-
Olmstead v. United States ( which was overturned by Katz ) 2023.08.17해당카페글 미리보기
balance public interests and individual rights. The Fifth and Fourth Amendments should be interpreted broadly to protect liberty, but not beyond the practical meanings of houses, persons, papers, and effects. Trespassing on private...
-
Boyd v. United States (Justice Bradley anticipated exclusionary rule) 2023.08.16해당카페글 미리보기
the public revenue in relation to imported merchandise, which are made criminal by the statute, and it is declared, that the offender shall be fined not exceeding $5,000 nor less than $50, or be imprisoned not exceeding two years, or...
-
Escobedo v. Illinois(Miranda's precedent, but it is sixth rights, not 5th) 2023.08.15해당카페글 미리보기
cynical prosecutor saying: 'Let them have the most illustrious counsel now. They can't escape the noose. There is nothing that counsel can do for them at the trial.'" Ex parte Sullivan, 107 F. Supp. 514, 517-518. It is argued that, if...