Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Osborn 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

63 entries 4 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Blau Vs. Lehman US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1962
  2. Watts Vs. Indiana US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  3. Napue Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1959
  4. Griswold Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1965
  5. Osborn v. United
    Search
  6. States - 385 U.S. 323 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Osborn v. United
    Search
  7. States, 385 U.S. 323 (1966) Osborn v. United
    Search
  8. case that Vick's testimony about the petitioner's incriminating statements was inadmissible in evidence. Cf. Hoffa v. United
    Search
  9. Lewis v. United
    Search
  10. S. 327 are asked to hold that the recording should have been excluded, either upon constitutional grounds, Weeks v. United
    Search
  11. States, 232 U. S. 383 , or in the exercise of our supervisory power over the federal courts. McNabb v. United
    Search
  12. meeting. We thus deal here not with surreptitious surveillance of a private conversation by an outsider, cf. Silverman v. United
    Search
  13. States, 365 U. S. 505 , but, as in Lopez v. United
    Search
  14. party of a device to make an accurate record of a conversation about which that party later testified. Unless Lopez v. United
    Search
  15. Masciale v. United
    Search
  16. Sherman v. United
    Search
  17. for the commission of a criminal Page 385 U. S. 332 offense, and that is a far cry from entrapment. Sherman v. United
    Search
  18. Sorrells v. United
    Search
  19. United States v. Russell
    Search
  20. Lopez v. United
    Search
  21. procedure of antecedent justification before a magistrate that is central to the Fourth Amendment,' Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price
    Search
  22. McDonald v. United
    Search
  23. Abel v. United
    Search
  24. prior conduct tending to show the defendant's predisposition to commit the offense charged is admissible. See Sorrells v. United
    Search
  25. Compare People v. Jaffe
    Search
  26. N.Y. 497, 78 N.E. 169, with People v. Gardner
    Search
  27. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting in Osborn v. United
    Search
  28. States and Lewis v. United
    Search
  29. States, and concurring with MR. JUSTICE CLARK in Hoffa v. United
    Search
  30. of federal law concerning the privacy of our citizens and the breach of that privacy by government agents. Lewis v. United
    Search
  31. posing in a different role for the purpose of obtaining evidence from the homeowner to convict him of a crime. Hoffa v. United
    Search
  32. there to serve as the Government's eyes and ears for the purpose of obtaining incriminating evidence. Osborn v. United
    Search
  33. in the Constitution, is essential to the exercise of other rights guaranteed by it. As we recently said in Griswold v. Connecticut
    Search
  34. Offices, conference rooms, Page 385 U. S. 342 hotel rooms, and even bedrooms ( see Irvine v. California
    Search
  35. for the convenience of government. Peepholes in men's rooms are there to catch homosexuals. See Smayda v. United
    Search
  36. so that their conversations are either recorded on their persons ( Lopez v. United
    Search
  37. squads of officers who work the men's rooms in public buildings trying to get homosexuals to solicit them. See Beard v. Stahr
    Search
  38. solicitation by the concealed government agent goes so far as to amount to entrapment, the prosecution fails. Sorrells v. United
    Search
  39. Olmstead v. United
    Search
  40. Cf. Frank v. Maryland
    Search
  41. Eaton v. Price
    Search
  42. U. S. 263 . We said in Gouled v. United
    Search
  43. standards of privacy which are parts of our choicest tradition. The formula approved today by the Court in Hoffa v. United
    Search
  44. Hoffa v. United
    Search
  45. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde
    Search
  46. See Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde
    Search
  47. Gonzales v. United
    Search
  48. constitutional rights we are careful to review findings of fact lest a state rule undercut the federal claim. Norris v. Alabama
    Search
  49. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Osborn v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial