Citation network
Singer Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 01, 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
-
Singer v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 380 U.S. 24 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Singer v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965) Singer v. UnitedSearch
-
the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury. Although he may waive his right to trial by jury, Patton v. UnitedSearch
-
did a defendant claim that he had the right to insist upon a trial without a jury. Indeed, in United States v. GibertSearch
-
United Page 380 U. S. 32 States v. TaylorSearch
-
Although not necessary to the holding in the case, in Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
made jury trial the exclusive method of determining guilt in all federal criminal cases. However, in Schick v. UnitedSearch
-
courts as establishing a rule that in all but petty offenses jury trial was a constitutional imperative. See Coates v. UnitedSearch
-
Blair v. UnitedSearch
-
Frank v. UnitedSearch
-
Low v. UnitedSearch
-
Dickinson v. UnitedSearch
-
whether a defendant could waive a jury trial in federal criminal cases was finally presented to this Court in Patton v. UnitedSearch
-
In Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
his constitutional right to a public trial, he has no absolute right to compel a private trial, see United States v. KobliSearch
-
where the crime was committed, he cannot in all cases compel transfer of the case to another district, see Platt v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Kersten v. UnitedSearch
-
Patton v. UnitedSearch
-
Repl. vol.), Alldredge v. IndianaSearch
-
Repl. vol.), Boaze v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Palmer v. StateSearch
-
Smith-Hurd ed. 1964), Illinois v. SpegalSearch
-
ed.). In upholding the validity of Rule 23(a), we reiterate the sentiment expressed in Berger v. UnitedSearch
-
The Pennsylvania case of Proprietor v. WilkinsSearch
-
Some state courts ruled that in the absence of a statute there could be no waiver of jury trial. See, e.g., Wilson v. StateSearch
-
State v. MaineSearch
-
People v. SmithSearch
-
Several other courts determined that the State could by statute prohibit waiver of jury trials. See, e.g., Arnold v. NebraskaSearch
-
State v. BatteySearch
-
State v. HirschSearch
-
Mays v. CommonwealthSearch
-
courts interpreted their constitutions to say that under no circumstances could waiver be allowed. See, e.g., State v. HoltSearch
-
Williams & Haynes v. StateSearch
-
that waiver of a jury was permissible, even in the absence of enabling legislation. See, e.g., State ex rel. Warner v. BaerSearch
-
Ohio St. 585, 134 N.E. 786 (1921) (overruling Williams & Haynes v. StateSearch
-
Ex parte King, 42 Okl.Cr. 46, 274 P. 682 (1929). In Hallinger v. DavisSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Singer v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. GibertSearch
-
States v. TaylorSearch
-
Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
Schick v. UnitedSearch
-
See Coates v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. KobliSearch
-
Platt v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Alldredge v. IndianaSearch
-
Boaze v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Illinois v. SpegalSearch
-
Berger v. UnitedSearch
-
of Proprietor v. WilkinsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial