Citation network
Harrison Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 1968
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
-
Harrison v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 392 U.S. 219 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Harrison v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 392 U.S. 219 (1968) Harrison v. UnitedSearch
-
s confessions had been illegally obtained, and were therefore inadmissible in evidence against him. Harrison v. UnitedSearch
-
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
Two of the confessions were found to have been obtained in violation of Mallory v. UnitedSearch
-
The third was found to have been obtained in violation of a prior en banc decision of the Court of Appeals, Harlin v. UnitedSearch
-
Edmonds v. UnitedSearch
-
Ayres v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 371 U. S. 471 , 371 U. S. 484 -488. Cf. Fahy v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U. S. 85 , 375 U. S. 91 . See also the opinions of Chief Justice Traynor in People v. JacksonSearch
-
Cal.2d 96, 97, 429 P.2d 600, 603, and People v. PolkSearch
-
Cal.2d 443, 449, 406 P.2d 641, 644, and the opinions of Justice Tobriner in People v. SpencerSearch
-
Cal.2d 158, 164-169, 424 P.2d 715, 719-724, and People v. BilderbachSearch
-
of the Poisonous Tree -- A Plea for Relevant Criteria, 115 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1136, 1143-1153 (1967). Compare United States v. WadeSearch
-
People v. SpencerSearch
-
Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
De Cicco v. SchweizerSearch
-
See People v. SpencerSearch
-
proving that the defendant's testimony was not produced by the illegal use of his confession at trial. Compare Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Compare United States v. BaerSearch
-
Id. at 331 U. S. 540 (dictum). Compare also Darwin v. ConnecticutSearch
-
This case is altogether different from Darwin v. ConnecticutSearch
-
make procedures for trying criminals more reliable for finding facts and minimizing mistakes. Cases like United States v. WadeSearch
-
U. S. 263 (1967), and Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 123 (1968), for example, at least could claim this redeeming virtue. But here, as in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
were wrongfully admitted not because they were involuntary or in any way coerced, but because they violated Mallory v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 354 U. S. 449 (1957), and recent decisions of the Court of Appeals in Killough v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 10, 336 F.2d 929 (1964), and Harling v. UnitedSearch
-
as such. This strictly causal notion of fruits is, of course, consistent with the dictum in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
of the poison tree. The Court seems to overlook the critical limitation placed upon the fruits doctrine in Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
to deter the police from engaging in such conduct in the future by denying them its past benefits. See Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
one is dealing with confessions excludable because of violation of the technical requirements of cases like Mallory v. UnitedSearch
-
Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 478 (1964), and Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
evidence because induced by an illegal confession, then it follows, as the Court indicates by quoting from People v. SpencerSearch
-
defendant bears the burden of showing that the evidence complained of was an inadmissible fruit of illegality. Fahy v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U. S. 85 , 375 U. S. 91 (1963). See Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Harrison v. UnitedSearch
-
of Mallory v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Court of Appeals, Harlin v. UnitedSearch
-
Edmonds v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial