Citation network
Spevack Vs. Klein
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 511 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Spevack v. KleinSearch
-
U.S. 511 (1967) Spevack v. KleinSearch
-
Court ordered him disbarred, holding that the privilege against self-incrimination was not available in light of Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
U. S. 117 . The New York Court of Appeals affirmed on the authority of Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
down by imposing the dishonor of disbarment and the deprivation of livelihood as a penalty for asserting it. Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination was not available to him in light of our decision in Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
Y.2d 490, 267 N.Y.S.2d 210, 214 N.E.2d 373. The case is here on certiorari which we granted to determine whether Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
supra, had survived Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
U. S. 1 . Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment was applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth. Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 1 . While Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
S. at 378 U. S. 11 . One minority view espoused by Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Clark stated that Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
would not tend to incriminate. Id., at 378 U. S. 33 -38. The Appellate Division distinguished Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
there the petitioner was not a member of the Bar. 24 A.D.2d at 654. And the Court of Appeals rested squarely on Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
And so the question emerges whether the principle of Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
is inapplicable because petitioner is a member of the Bar. We conclude that Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
and the deprivation of a livelihood as a price for asserting it. These views, expounded in the dissents in Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
is not restricted to fine or imprisonment. It means, as we said in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
in Malloy and Griffin is in the tradition of the broad protection given the privilege at least since Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WhiteSearch
-
U. S. 694 , 322 U. S. 698 . As we recently stated in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
It is in that tradition that we overrule Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
and we can imply no exception. Like the school teacher in Slochower v. BoardSearch
-
of Education, 350 U. S. 551 , and the policemen in Garrity v. NewSearch
-
The Court of Appeals alternately affirmed the judgment disbarring petitioner on the ground that, under Shapiro v. UnitedSearch
-
His disbarment cannot be affirmed on the ground that the privilege was not applicable in the first place. Cole v. ArkansasSearch
-
Order affirmed on the authority of Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
to a demand not for oral testimony, but that an attorney produce records required by law to be kept by him. Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
Shapiro v. UnitedSearch
-
S. 405 , much relied on here, was a five-to-four decision the other way, and accurately reflected the pre- Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
as declared in Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
It is an argument that could be made, but I would disagree with it for this reason. Under the doctrine of Shapiro v. UnitedSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring in the judgment. I agree that Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
to use the testimony given under this Page 385 U. S. 520 lash in a subsequent criminal proceeding. Garrity v. NewSearch
-
although I would be prepared in an appropriate case to reexamine the scope of the principle announced in Shapiro v. UnitedSearch
-
import for our profession is surely suspect on its face. Six years ago, a majority of this Court, in Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
make applicable to the States the Fifth Amendment as such. Three years later, another majority of the Court, in Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
to make the Fifth Amendment applicable to the States, and, in doing so, cast doubt on the continuing vitality of Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
and the character and urgency of the other public interests Page 385 U. S. 523 involved. See, e.g., Orloff v. WilloughbySearch
-
Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 335 U. S. 1 . If, as Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
imposed by the Fifth Amendment are now to be extended to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, see also Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the construction consistently given to the Fourteenth Amendment by this Court would require their consideration. Bates v. CitySearch
-
both requirements for admission and standards of practice for those who wish to enter the professions. E.g., Hawker v. NewSearch
-
Dent v. WestSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial