Citation network
Rogers Vs. Richmond
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 20, 1961
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 534 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
U.S. 534 (1961) Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
discrediting the confessions as the product of coercion. In accordance with Connecticut practice, see, e.g., State v. WillisSearch
-
State v. GuastamachioSearch
-
of Connecticut, finding no error in the trial judge's admission of the confessions, affirmed the conviction, State v. RogersSearch
-
A.2d 409. First Federal Habeas Corpus Proceeding. -- In August of 1956, after satisfying the rule of Darr v. BurfordSearch
-
Rogers v. CummingsSearch
-
on issues of basic evidentiary fact that had been considered and adjudicated by the state courts. Relying on Brown v. AllenSearch
-
Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
before him material which he deems to constitute 'vital flaws' and 'unusual circumstances' within the meaning of Brown v. AllenSearch
-
the determination in such proceedings, he need not deem such determination binding, and may take testimony. See Brown v. AllenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
entire transcript of the state proceedings and on the basis of it dismissed the petition. United States ex rel. Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed this judgment, one judge dissenting. United States ex rel. Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
and freely secured, and may not, by coercion, prove its charge against an accused out of his own mouth. See Chambers v. StateSearch
-
Spano v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 199 , 361 U. S. 206 -207. And see Watts v. IndianaSearch
-
to the undisputed, the uncontested evidence of record. See Watts v. IndianaSearch
-
be severed in consideration. And, in any event, there must be a foundation in fact for the legal result. See Thompson v. CitySearch
-
conclusion in a line of Connecticut cases, some of which are cited by the Supreme Court of Errors in Rogers. See State v. WillisSearch
-
State v. CrossSearch
-
State v. DiBattistaSearch
-
State v. PalkoSearch
-
State v. TomassiSearch
-
State v. LorainSearch
-
Conn. 694, 700, 109 A.2d 504, 507. But see State v. WakefieldSearch
-
State v. CastelliSearch
-
State v. ZukauskasSearch
-
State v. ButeauSearch
-
State v. MalmSearch
-
A different question was implicitly presented in Stroble v. CaliforniaSearch
-
required by due process. See Lyons v. OklahomaSearch
-
question presented in Stroble was not faced squarely, and, in illuminating isolation, in that case. Compare Lee v. MississippiSearch
-
of the state courts' failure properly to verbalize the correct Fourteenth Amendment test of admissibility. Cf. Stroble v. CaliforniaSearch
-
c)(3). See Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
if, and Page 365 U. S. 550 only if, a coerced confession was in fact admitted at the trial. See Leyra v. DennoSearch
-
s unquestioning reliance on the trial court's findings of fact. Even the most narrow view of what was said in Brown v. AllenSearch
-
follows the orthodox rule of leaving the determination of admissibility exclusively to the trial judge. State v. McCarthySearch
-
Conn. 694, 699, 109 A.2d 504, 507. Compare Stein v. NewSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
State v. WillisSearch
-
State v. RogersSearch
-
of Darr v. BurfordSearch
-
Rogers v. CummingsSearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
of Brown v. AllenSearch
-
See Brown v. AllenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial