Citation network
Estes Vs. Texas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 07, 1965
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. 532 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Estes v. TexasSearch
-
U.S. 532 (1965) Estes v. TexasSearch
-
prejudice to the accused will result, that procedure, in line with the principle established in such cases as Rideau v. LouisianaSearch
-
that the picture presented was not one of that judicial serenity and calm to which petitioner was entitled. Cf. Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
II In Rideau v. LouisianaSearch
-
to continue to enforce the principles that, from time immemorial, have proven efficacious and necessary to a fair trial. v. TheSearch
-
citing Craig v. HarneySearch
-
are plainly free to report whatever occurs in open court through their respective media. This was settled in Bridges v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 252 (1941), and Pennekamp v. FloridaSearch
-
o perform its high function in the best way, 'justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.' Offutt v. UnitedSearch
-
At 349 U. S. 136 . (Emphasis supplied.) And, as Chief Justice Taft said in Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
At 273 U. S. 532 . (Emphasis supplied.) This rule was followed in Rideau, supra, and in Turner v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 466 (1965). In each of these cases, the Court departed from the approach it charted in Stroble v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 181 (1952), and in Irvin v. DowdSearch
-
of the practice, but struck down the conviction on the ground that prejudice was inherent in it. Likewise, in Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
Page 381 U. S. 544 372 U. S. 335 (1963), and White v. MarylandSearch
-
it resulted in a public presentation of only the State's side of the case. As Mr. Justice Holmes said in Patterson v. ColoradoSearch
-
have certain specific rights, but also that he enjoy them at a trial -- a word with a meaning of its own, see Bridges v. CaliforniaSearch
-
open to the public, In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 , the right to notice of specific charges, Cole v. ArkansasSearch
-
the right to confrontation, Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 415 , and the right to counsel, Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
the intrusion of factors into the trial process that tend to subvert its purpose. The Court recognized in Pennekamp v. FloridaSearch
-
And, in Moore v. DempseySearch
-
were impartial, the jury was correctly charged, and the evidence was legally sufficient to convict. Moreover, in Irvin v. DowdSearch
-
process. Craig v. HarneySearch
-
Darcy v. HandySearch
-
been found to thwart the purpose of trial, this Court has declared those procedures to be unconstitutional. In Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
prejudice, that it declared the practice unconstitutional even though no specific prejudice was shown. In Lyons v. OklahomaSearch
-
other evidence in the record to justify a verdict of guilty. We explained the rationale behind this judgment in Payne v. ArkansasSearch
-
Similar reasoning led to the decision last Term in Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
Id. at 378 U. S. 389 . Earlier this Term, in Turner v. LouisianaSearch
-
to situations that may not have been foreseen at the time those principles were adopted. As was said in Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 217 U. S. 349 , 217 U. S. 373 , and reaffirmed in Brown v. BoardSearch
-
the criminal trial has one well defined purpose -- to provide a fair and reliable determination of guilt. In Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
under the Due Process Clause, we have an obligation to make an independent examination of the record, e.g., Watts v. IndianaSearch
-
treat the televising of the September proceedings as a factor relevant to our consideration. Our decisions in White v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 59 , and Hamilton v. AlabamaSearch
-
at actual trial, and his conviction will be reversed if he is not accorded these protections. In addition, in Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
is not an abstract fear I am expressing, because this very situation confronted the Nebraska Supreme Court in Roberts v. StateSearch
-
or even of the whole trial, would make it almost impossible to select an impartial jury for a second trial. Cf. Rideau v. LouisianaSearch
-
right through the courtroom door and made itself at home in heretofore unfamiliar surroundings. We stated in Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
the jury to convict him when there was substantial evidence to support his conviction aside from the confession, Payne v. ArkansasSearch
-
refrained from making a Page 381 U. S. 579 clearcut determination on the voluntariness question, Jackson v. DennoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial