Citation network
Carnley Vs. Cochran
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 30, 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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 506 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Carnley v. CochranSearch
-
U.S. 506 (1962) Carnley v. CochranSearch
-
of conduct elsewhere specifically defined as criminal, the 1954 decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Copeland v. StateSearch
-
crime without defense counsel did not measure up to the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Chewning v. CunninghamSearch
-
but to which defense counsel doubtless would have called attention. The omissions are significant. See, e.g., Cash v. CulverSearch
-
Hudson v. NorthSearch
-
of counsel. The record does not show that the trial judge offered, and the petitioner declined, counsel. Cf. Moore v. MichiganSearch
-
In McNeal v. CulverSearch
-
whether or not the accused requested the appointment of counsel. Uveges v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U.S. at 365 U. S. 111 , note 1. See Rice v. OlsonSearch
-
accused is wholly at war with the standard of proof of waiver of the right to counsel which we laid down in Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
We have held the principles declared in Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
equally applicable to asserted waivers of the right to counsel in state criminal proceedings. In Rice v. OlsonSearch
-
U.S. at 324 U. S. 788 . However, we recognized in Rice v. OlsonSearch
-
counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not waiver. Neither Bute v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 640 , nor Moore v. MichiganSearch
-
because the title of the Act failed to give notice that the consequences of rape had been changed. But see Buchanan v. StateSearch
-
for the reasons stated in its opinion that petitioner was, even under the constitutional doctrine announced in Betts v. BradySearch
-
That is still my view. Twenty years' experience in the state and federal courts with the Betts v. BradySearch
-
cases since Betts v. BradySearch
-
right to counsel as defendants in federal courts have been held to have by virtue of the Sixth Amendment. Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
U. S. 458 . For these and many other reasons, including those set out in McNeal v. CulverSearch
-
U. S. 117 , by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and joined in by MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, I would overrule Betts v. BradySearch
-
in this case. In so doing, we would simply return to the holding of this Court in Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Moore v. MichiganSearch
-
Herman v. ClaudySearch
-
De Meerleer v. MichiganSearch
-
U. S. 471 . But cf. Quicksall v. MichiganSearch
-
Flansburg v. KaiserSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Carnley v. CochranSearch
-
Copeland v. StateSearch
-
Cf. Moore v. MichiganSearch
-
See Rice v. OlsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial