Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Beck Vs. Washington

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 14, 1962

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

75 entries 5 linked 70 unlinked
Show
  1. Capital City Dairy Co. Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1902
  2. United States Ex Rel. Darcy Vs. Handy US Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1956
  3. Pierre Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1939
  4. Cassell Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1950
    Relied / Followed
  5. Hale Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
  6. U.S. 541 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Beck v. Washington
    Search
  7. U.S. 541 (1962) Beck v. Washington
    Search
  8. until his conviction on December 14. II . THE OBJECTIONS TO THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS Ever since Hurtado v. California
    Search
  9. a procedure which has likewise had approval here in such cases as Ocampo v. United
    Search
  10. States, 234 U. S. 91 (1914), and Lem Woon v. Oregon
    Search
  11. requires the State, having once resorted to a grand jury procedure, to furnish an unbiased grand jury. Compare Lawn v. United
    Search
  12. Costello v. United
    Search
  13. Hoffman v. United
    Search
  14. where the constitutional claims arise from the trial court's interpretation of the challenged statute. E.g., Johnson v. Seattle
    Search
  15. Page 369 U. S. 553 this rule sufficient to invoke review of the underlying contentions. See, e.g., Washington v. Tanzymore
    Search
  16. Fowles v. Sweeney
    Search
  17. Linden v. Bunge
    Search
  18. Washington v. Williams
    Search
  19. the argument cannot be entertained here under an unbroken line of precedent. Page 369 U. S. 554 E.g., Ferguson v. Georgia
    Search
  20. Milwaukee Electric Ry. & Light Co. v. Wisconsin
    Search
  21. be exalting form over substance contrary to our previous application of the Equal Protection Clause, e.g., Graham v. West
    Search
  22. as to impartiality far exceeded the minimum standards this Court established in its earlier cases, as well as in Irvin v. Dowd
    Search
  23. the answers of the jurors and would be compelled to find bias or preformed opinion as a matter of law. Compare Irvin v. Dowd
    Search
  24. Washington v. Griffith
    Search
  25. There are no reported Washington cases so holding. The two cases on which this claim is predicated, Washington v. Guthrie
    Search
  26. Wash. 464, 56 P.2d 160 (1936), and Washington ex rel. Murphy v. Superior
    Search
  27. In State ex rel. Murphy v. Superior
    Search
  28. Some years later, in State v. Guthrie
    Search
  29. on the part of one or more grand jurors. On the contrary, the Washington Supreme Court said in State ex rel. Murphy v. Superior
    Search
  30. the grand jury. Since all these contentions are inextricably intertwined, under our decision of last term in Boynton v. Virginia
    Search
  31. State v. Beck
    Search
  32. court brief to support his contention that the grand jury was not organized in accordance with state law were Watts v. Washington
    Search
  33. Murphy v. Superior
    Search
  34. and State v. Guthrie
    Search
  35. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Matthews
    Search
  36. U. S. 96 , 174 U. S. 104 -105. Cf. McFarland v. American
    Search
  37. law as to a single statute denies petitioner Beck the equal protection of the law, Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co. v. Milwaukee
    Search
  38. law between those in jail or on bail and those merely subject to grand jury investigation. Thus, in United States v. Blodgett
    Search
  39. And in McQuillen v. State
    Search
  40. Hardin v. State
    Search
  41. Crowley v. United
    Search
  42. Cf. Skinner v. Oklahoma
    Search
  43. The decisions referred to were Watts v. Washington
    Search
  44. Washington v. Griffith
    Search
  45. Lee v. Seattle-First
    Search
  46. Emphasis supplied.) MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. I Although, according to Hurtado v. California
    Search
  47. the reason why the systematic exclusion of Negroes from grand jury service infects the accusatory process. See Pierre v. Louisiana
    Search
  48. U. S. 282 . The same principle was applied in Hernandez v. Texas
    Search
  49. from grand jury duty. Strauder v. West
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Beck v. Washington
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial