Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gilbert Vs. California

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

70 entries 10 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Schmerber Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1966
  2. United States Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
  3. Gideon Vs. Wainwright US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  4. Stoner Vs. California US Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1969
  5. Stovall Vs. Denno US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
    Relied / Followed
  6. Fahy Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Dec 02, 1963
    Relied / Followed
  7. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  8. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  9. United States Vs. Jeffers US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1951
  10. United States Vs. Lefkowitz US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1932
  11. U.S. 263 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Gilbert v. California
    Search
  12. U.S. 263 (1967) Gilbert v. California
    Search
  13. his right to a fair trial. P. 388 U. S. 267 . 2. Petitioner's request for reconsideration of Delli Paoli v. United
    Search
  14. not tainted by the illegal lineup procedure but were of independent origin was constitutional error. United States v. Wade
    Search
  15. and remanded. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. This case was argued with United States v. Wade
    Search
  16. We granted certiorari, 384 U. S. 985 , and set the case for argument with Wade and with Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  17. like the voice or body itself, is an identifying physical characteristic outside its protection. United States v. Wade
    Search
  18. S. 222 -223. No claim its made that the content of the exemplars was testimonial or communicative matter. Cf. Boyd v. United
    Search
  19. there is minimal risk that the absence of counsel might derogate from his right to a fair trial. Cf. United States v. Wade
    Search
  20. Cal.2d at 699-701, 408 P.2d at 370-371. Page 388 U. S. 268 Petitioner would have us reconsider Delli Paoli v. United
    Search
  21. reasoning of the Delli Paoli dissent, regards cautionary instructions as inadequate to cure prejudice. People v. Aranda
    Search
  22. a standard derived by the court from our decision in Fahy v. Connecticut
    Search
  23. Fahy was the basis of our holding in Chapman v. California
    Search
  24. Warden v. Hayden
    Search
  25. U. S. 294 . We therefore vacate certiorari on this issue as improvidently granted. The Monrosa v. Carbon
    Search
  26. issue becomes what relief is required by application to this case of the principles today announced in United States v. Wade
    Search
  27. of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  28. they were not tainted by the illegal lineup but were of independent origin was constitutional error. United States v. Wade
    Search
  29. Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  30. constitutionally objectionable practice must prevail over the undesirability of excluding relevant evidence. Cf. Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  31. The record in Gilbert v. United
    Search
  32. for cross-examination at trial. See 5 ALR2d Later Case Service 1225-1228. That is the California rule. In People v. Gould
    Search
  33. of an extrajudicial identification is admissible not only to corroborate an identification made at the trial ( People v. Slobodion
    Search
  34. the Fifth Amendment and the Right to Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment obligatory on the States. See, e.g., Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  35. U. S. 335 . I (a) Relying on Schmerber v. California
    Search
  36. the lineup identification. I dissent from that holding. For reasons set out in my separate opinion in United States v. Wade
    Search
  37. wholly out of line with the liberal construction which should always be given to the Bill of Rights. See Boyd v. United
    Search
  38. a lawyer is constitutionally unfair, unless the court-created balancing formula has somehow changed it. Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  39. U. S. 458 , and Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  40. which referred to Gilbert. But instead of squarely rejecting petitioner's reliance on the dissent in Delli Paoli v. United
    Search
  41. constitutional one, applied a harmless error test which measures up to the one we subsequently enunciated in Chapman v. California
    Search
  42. would violate some federal constitutional provision, and there is no such federal provision here. See Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  43. I dissent from this holding in this case and in United States v. Wade
    Search
  44. to the rule that a search and seizure must rest upon a validly executed search warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Jeffers
    Search
  45. Jones v. United
    Search
  46. Rios v. United
    Search
  47. Agnello v. United
    Search
  48. The search and seizure in this case violates another limitation, which concededly the ill-starred decision in Harris v. United
    Search
  49. or have a warrant of arrest, does not make constitutional a general search of a room or of a house ( United States v. Lefkowitz
    Search
  50. As stated by the Court in United States v. Lefkowitz
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial