Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Garrity Vs. New Jersey

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 16, 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

69 entries 10 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Haynes Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · May 27, 1963
  2. Lisenba Vs. California US Supreme Court · Dec 08, 1941
  3. Stevens Vs. Marks US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1966
  4. Murdock Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · May 03, 1943
  5. Thomas Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1945
  6. Miranda Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1966
  7. Leyra Vs. Denno US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1954
  8. Spevack Vs. Klein US Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1967
  9. Harman Vs. Forssenius US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1965
  10. Reck Vs. Pate US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1961
  11. Garrity v. New
    Search
  12. Jersey - 385 U.S. 493 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Garrity v. New
    Search
  13. Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) Garrity v. New
    Search
  14. Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  15. petitioners was one between self-incrimination or job forfeiture. Coercion that vitiates a confession under Chambers v. Florida
    Search
  16. U. S. 199 , 361 U. S. 206 . Subtle pressures ( Leyra v. Denno
    Search
  17. U. S. 219 , 314 U. S. 241 . We adhere to Boyd v. United
    Search
  18. Fourth Amendment. Id. at 116 U. S. 634 -635. It is that principle that we adhere to and apply in Spevack v. Klein
    Search
  19. of free choice to speak out or to remain silent. That practice, like interrogation practices we reviewed in Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  20. to compulsion, they preserved their objections, raising them at the earliest possible point. Cf. Abie State Bank v. Bryan
    Search
  21. is anxious to make a clean breast of the whole affair volunteers the information. Mr. Justice Holmes in McAulife v. New
    Search
  22. can use the threat of discharge to secure incriminatory evidence against an employee. We held in Slochower v. Board
    Search
  23. a State may not condition by the exaction of a price. Engaging in interstate commerce is one. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas
    Search
  24. U. S. 1 . Resort to the federal courts in diversity of citizenship cases is another. Terral v. Burke
    Search
  25. Constr. Co., 257 U. S. 529 . Assertion of a First Amendment right is still another. Lovell v. City
    Search
  26. Lamont v. Postmaster
    Search
  27. S. 305 -306. The imposition of a burden on the exercise of a Twenty-fourth Amendment right is also banned. Harman v. Forssenius
    Search
  28. U. S. 234 , 383 U. S. 243 , quoting from Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  29. CLARK and MR. JUSTICE STEWART join, dissenting. The majority opinion here and the plurality opinion in Spevack v. Klein
    Search
  30. that the statements were involuntary as a matter of fact, in the same fashion that the statements in Chambers v. Florida
    Search
  31. U. S. 227 , and Haynes v. Washington
    Search
  32. have emphasized a variety of factual criteria. The criteria employed have included threats of imminent danger, Payne v. Arkansas
    Search
  33. U. S. 560 , physical deprivations, Reck v. Pate
    Search
  34. U. S. 433 , repeated or extended interrogation, Chambers v. Florida
    Search
  35. U. S. 227 , limits on access to counsel or friends, Crooker v. California
    Search
  36. U. S. 433 , length and illegality of detention under state law, Haynes v. Washington
    Search
  37. U. S. 503 , individual weakness or incapacity, Lynumn v. Illinois
    Search
  38. U. S. 528 , and the adequacy of warnings of constitutional rights, Davis v. North
    Search
  39. Davis v. North
    Search
  40. the use of his statements against him in a criminal prosecution, to prove under the standards established since Brown v. Mississippi
    Search
  41. the statements were involuntarily made. The central issues here are therefore identical to those presented in Spevack v. Klein
    Search
  42. privilege, and, if so, whether the consequence in question is permissible. For reasons which I have stated in Spevack v. Klein
    Search
  43. that its employees furnish the appropriate authorities with information pertinent to their employment. Cf. Beilan v. Board
    Search
  44. Slochower v. Board
    Search
  45. prosecutions precisely on the ground that this might encourage high standards of police behavior. See, e.g., Ashcraft v. Tennessee
    Search
  46. an imputation of guilt drawn from the use of the privilege, as was thought by this Court to have occurred in Slochower v. Board
    Search
  47. faith of an employee, has, until today, consistently paused to examine the actual circumstances of each case. Beilan v. Board
    Search
  48. Nelson v. Los
    Search
  49. right to remain police officers in the face of their clear violation of the duty imposed upon them.' Christal v. Police
    Search
  50. Citing 33 Cal.App.2d 564, 92 P.2d 416. (Emphasis added by Judge Frank.) United States v. Field
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial