Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Duncan Vs. Louisiana

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 20, 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

65 entries 12 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Powell Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Nov 07, 1932
  2. Gideon Vs. Wainwright US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  3. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  4. Pointer Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1965
  5. Palko Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1937
  6. Thompson Vs. Utah US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1898
  7. United States Ex Rel. Toth Vs. Quarles US Supreme Court · Nov 07, 1955
  8. Cheff Vs. Schnackenberg US Supreme Court · Jun 06, 1966
    Relied / Followed
  9. District of Columbia Vs. Clawans US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1937
  10. Natal Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1891
  11. Maxwell Vs. Dow US Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1900
  12. Fiske Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · May 16, 1927
  13. U.S. 145 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Duncan v. Louisiana
    Search
  14. U.S. 145 (1968) Duncan v. Louisiana
    Search
  15. and set the case for oral argument with No. 52, Bloom v. Illinois
    Search
  16. to extend due process of law to all persons within their jurisdiction. Louisiana relies especially on Maxwell v. Dow
    Search
  17. U. S. 319 (1937), and Snyder v. Massachusetts
    Search
  18. well it was performing its job, and did not discuss possible distinctions between civil and criminal cases. In Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  19. Singer v. United
    Search
  20. possible penalties up to six months do not require a jury trial if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses, Cheff v. Schnackenberg
    Search
  21. and may in itself, if severe enough, subject the trial to the mandates of the Sixth Amendment. District of Columbia v. Page
    Search
  22. of other punishment is enough, in itself, to require a jury trial, we are counseled by District of Columbia v. Clawans
    Search
  23. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chico
    Search
  24. Fiske v. Kansas
    Search
  25. See Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  26. Klopfer v. North
    Search
  27. Washington v. Texas
    Search
  28. Quoting from Hebert v. Louisiana
    Search
  29. a State, if a civilized system could be imagined that would not accord the particular protection. For example, Palko v. Connecticut
    Search
  30. can justify the conclusions that state courts must exclude evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  31. that state prosecutors may not comment on a defendant's failure to testify, Griffin v. California
    Search
  32. U. S. 609 (1965), and that criminal punishment may not be imposed for the status of narcotics addiction, Robinson v. California
    Search
  33. different from the way it appeared in the older cases opining that States might abolish jury trial. See, e.g., Maxwell v. Dow
    Search
  34. Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted specifically to place limitations upon the States. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas
    Search
  35. Gitlow v. New
    Search
  36. Irvin v. Dowd
    Search
  37. People v. Garbutt
    Search
  38. See Patton v. United
    Search
  39. of this Court interpreting the Sixth Amendment as guaranteeing a 12-man jury in serious criminal cases, Thompson v. Utah
    Search
  40. as requiring a unanimous verdict before guilt can be found, Maxwell v. Dow
    Search
  41. in the first instance without a jury, but, at the first appellate stage, by de novo trial with a jury, Callan v. Wilson
    Search
  42. Schick v. United
    Search
  43. Callan v. Wilson
    Search
  44. but no jury trial. The denial of jury trial was upheld by a 4-3 vote against state constitutional attack in State v. Maier
    Search
  45. provides a jury within New York City only for offenses bearing a maximum sentence greater than one year. See People v. Sarlabria
    Search
  46. It is argued that Cheff v. Schnackenberg
    Search
  47. this holding I agree for reasons given by the Court. I also agree because of reasons given in my dissent in Adamson v. California
    Search
  48. U. S. 68 . In that dissent, at 332 U. S. 90 , I took the position, contrary to the holding in Twining v. New
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Duncan v. Louisiana
    Search
  50. Bloom v. Illinois
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial