Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hoffa Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 12, 1966

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

76 entries 6 linked 70 unlinked
Show
  1. Escobedo Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1964
  2. Haynes Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · May 27, 1963
  3. Watts Vs. Indiana US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  4. Norris Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1935
  5. Napue Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1959
  6. United States Vs. Jeffers US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1951
  7. Hoffa v. United
    Search
  8. States - 385 U.S. 293 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Hoffa v. United
    Search
  9. States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966) Hoffa v. United
    Search
  10. were made in the presence of counsel or in connection with the legitimate defense of the Taft-Hartley trial. Caldwell v. United
    Search
  11. Coplon v. United
    Search
  12. trial was impaired, and only he and King have standing with respect to the other constitutional claims. Cf. Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  13. Jones v. United
    Search
  14. in the hotel suite, and that Partin's testimony was therefore inadmissible under the exclusionary rule of Weeks v. United
    Search
  15. A hotel room can clearly be the object of Fourth Amendment protection, as much as a home or an office. United States v. Jeffers
    Search
  16. certainly be violated by guileful, as well as by forcible, intrusions into a constitutionally protected area. Gouled v. United
    Search
  17. of the Fourth Amendment are surely not limited to tangibles, but can extend as well to oral statements. Silverman v. United
    Search
  18. will not reveal it. Indeed, the Court unanimously rejected that very contention less than four years ago in Lopez v. United
    Search
  19. of petitioner's office simply because his apparent willingness to accept a bribe was not real. Compare Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  20. violate the privacy of the office by seizing something surreptitiously without petitioner's knowledge. Compare Gouled v. United
    Search
  21. Id. at 373 U. S. 465 . See also Lewis v. United
    Search
  22. Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination. Some of those differences were aired last Term in Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  23. has found expression in two cases decided by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Caldwell v. United
    Search
  24. States, 92 U.S.App. D C. 355, 205 F.2d 879, and Coplon v. United
    Search
  25. of a hung jury, the conviction would presumptively have been set aside as constitutionally defective. Cf. Black v. United
    Search
  26. of any such violation. In Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  27. not have continued to question the petitioner without observance of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Massiah v. United
    Search
  28. speaking peoples Page 385 U. S. 311 even toward those charged with the most heinous offenses' ( Rochin v. California
    Search
  29. United States v. Dennis
    Search
  30. degree more free from all relevant constitutional restrictions than is any other government agent. See Massiah v. United
    Search
  31. Together with No. 33, Parks v. United
    Search
  32. States, No. 34, Campbell v. United
    Search
  33. States, and No. 35, King v. United
    Search
  34. of the Fourth Amendment if Partin had been a stranger to the petitioner is a question we do not decide. Cf. Lewis v. United
    Search
  35. the findings of lower courts when it is alleged that fundamental constitutional rights have been violated. Jacobellis v. Ohio
    Search
  36. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  37. prevailing upon friendship with the victim is no less proscribed than an invasion accomplished by force. See Massiah v. United
    Search
  38. Gouled v. United
    Search
  39. the administration of justice in federal courts. II For me, this case and two others decided today ( Lewis v. United
    Search
  40. States, ante, p. 385 U. S. 206 , and Osborn v. United
    Search
  41. to the business purpose of his visit. As we said in affirming Lewis' conviction, the principles elaborated in Gouled v. United
    Search
  42. informer when we sustain the undercover work of the agent responsible for Lewis' conviction. Compare Sherman v. United
    Search
  43. Lopez v. United
    Search
  44. that are used to invade privacy and that appear to be increasingly prevalent in our country today. Cf. Silverman v. United
    Search
  45. Black v. United
    Search
  46. United States v. Schipani
    Search
  47. is sufficient to require an exercise of our supervisory powers. As we said in ordering a new trial in Mesarosh v. United
    Search
  48. McNabb v. United
    Search
  49. Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde
    Search
  50. United States v. Yellow
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial