Citation network
United States Vs. Wade
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 12, 1967
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. 218 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. WadeSearch
-
U.S. 218 (1967) United States v. WadeSearch
-
F.2d 557, 560. We granted certiorari, 385 U.S. 811, and set the case for oral argument with No. 223, Gilbert v. CaliforniaSearch
-
post, p. 388 U. S. 263 , and No. 254, Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
evidence of the analysis report were not compulsion to those ends. That holding was supported by the opinion in Holt v. UnitedSearch
-
The constitutions in at least 11 of the 13 States expressly or impliedly abolished this distinction. Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
As early as Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 52 , 368 U. S. 54 . See White v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 59 . The principle was also applied in Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a meeting between the defendant and an accomplice turned informant. We said, quoting a concurring opinion in Spano v. NewSearch
-
U.S. at 377 U. S. 204 . In Escobedo v. IllinoisSearch
-
U.S. at 378 U. S. 487 -488. Finally, in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
no more than reflect a constitutional principle established as long ago as Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
the accused's interests will be protected consistently with our adversary theory of criminal prosecution. Cf. Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 400 . In sum, the principle of Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
as in the present case, or presentation of the suspect alone to the witness, as in Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
right of cross-examination which is an essential safeguard to his right to confront the witnesses against him. Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
See Carnley v. CochranSearch
-
basic assumptions upon which this Court has operated in Sixth Amendment cases. We rejected similar logic in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
in-court identifications were based upon observations of the suspect other than the lineup identification. See Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
See Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
that right. We think it follows that the proper test to be applied in these situations is that quoted in Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
Hoffa v. UnitedSearch
-
had an independent source or whether, in any event, the introduction of the evidence was harmless error, Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and for the District Court to reinstate the conviction or order a new trial, as may be proper. See United States v. ShotwellSearch
-
of the Court except for 388 U. S. On that phase of the case, he adheres to the dissenting views in Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Holt was decided before Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
fashioned the rule excluding illegally obtained evidence in a federal prosecution. The Court therefore followed Adams v. NewSearch
-
See Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
White v. MarylandSearch
-
People v. BoneySearch
-
People v. JamesSearch
-
of the lineup. In many, lights shine on the stage in such a way that the suspect cannot see the witness. See Gilbert v. UnitedSearch
-
A. 9th Cir.1966). In some, a one-way mirror is used and what is said on the witness' side cannot be heard. See Rigney v. HendrickSearch
-
Aaron v. StateSearch
-
rested on their unsupportable allegations, usually controverted by the police officers present. See, e.g., People v. ShieldsSearch
-
People v. HicksSearch
-
State v. HillSearch
-
Redmon v. CommonwealthSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. WadeSearch
-
Holt v. UnitedSearch
-
See White v. MarylandSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial