Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Tehan Vs. Shott

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 19, 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

68 entries 11 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  2. Snyder Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1934
  3. Doughty Vs. Maxwell US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1963
  4. GriffIn Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1956
  5. McnerlIn Vs. Denno US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1964
  6. Reck Vs. Pate US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1961
  7. Linkletter Vs. Walker US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1965
    Relied / Followed
  8. Palko Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1937
    Relied / Followed
  9. Knapp Vs. Schweitzer US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  10. Cohen Vs. Hurley US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1961
  11. Wolf Vs. Colorado US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  12. U.S. 406 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Tehan v. Shott
    Search
  13. U.S. 406 (1966) Tehan v. Shott
    Search
  14. Court of Appeals reversed, noting that, on the day preceding oral argument of the appeal, the Supreme Court, in Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  15. state abridgment, and reasoning that the protection includes freedom from comment on failure to testify. In Griffin v. California
    Search
  16. The doctrine of Griffin v. California
    Search
  17. will not be applied retrospectively. Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  18. U. S. 1 , 378 U. S. 6 . In Griffin v. California
    Search
  19. U. S. 609 , 380 U. S. 614 . The question before us now is whether the rule of Griffin v. California
    Search
  20. direct review of the respondent's conviction were thus fully foreclosed more than a year before our decision in Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  21. supra, and almost two years before our decision in Griffin v. California
    Search
  22. the day before the oral argument of this appeal, the Supreme Court, in Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  23. to brief and argue the question of the retroactivity of the doctrine announced in Griffin v. California
    Search
  24. the original Ohio Page 382 U. S. 409 judgment of conviction in this case became final long before Griffin v. California
    Search
  25. II In Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  26. U. S. 618 , we held that the exclusionary rule of Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  27. III Twining v. New
    Search
  28. Brown v. Mississippi
    Search
  29. U. S. 278 , 297 U. S. 285 . In 1937, the Court again approved the Twining doctrine in Palko v. Connecticut
    Search
  30. U. S. 319 , 302 U. S. 324 , 325-326. In Adamson v. California
    Search
  31. Thereafter, the Court continued to adhere to the Twining rule, notably in Knapp v. Schweitzer
    Search
  32. decided in 1958, 357 U. S. 371 , 357 U. S. 374 , and in Cohen v. Hurley
    Search
  33. deviation from that position during a period of more than 50 years. Thus matters stood in 1964, when Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  34. abridgment by the States (378 U.S. at 378 U. S. 6 ). Less than a year later, on April 28, 1965, Griffin v. California
    Search
  35. Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter
    Search
  36. and the effect on the administration of justice of a retrospective application of Griffin. See Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  37. U.S. at 381 U. S. 636 . In Linkletter, the Court stressed that the prime purpose of the rule of Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  38. rejecting the doctrine of Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  39. can be attributed to Griffin v. California
    Search
  40. Second, since long before Twining v. New
    Search
  41. impede that purpose, and to infect a criminal proceeding with the clear danger of convicting the innocent. See Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  42. Eskridge v. Washington
    Search
  43. Board, 357 U. S. 214 . The same can surely be said of the wrongful use of a coerced confession. See Jackson v. Denno
    Search
  44. in this Court, but was of unquestioned legitimacy as compared to the reliance of the States upon the doctrine of Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  45. important factor militating against the retroactive application of Mapp. During the 12-year period between Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  46. and Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  47. U.S. at 381 U. S. 636 . A retrospective application of Griffin v. California
    Search
  48. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, dissents for substantially the same reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  49. the question, and each court has unanimously held that, under the controlling principles discussed in Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  50. Pinch v. Maxwell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial