Citation network
Frank Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 19, 1969
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
-
Frank v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 395 U.S. 147 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Frank v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 395 U.S. 147 (1969) Frank v. UnitedSearch
-
Criminal contempt sentences of up to six months may be constitutionally imposed without a jury trial. See Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
-
suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for three years. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Frank v. UnitedSearch
-
offenses may be tried without a jury. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
Court has sought objective indications of the seriousness with which society regards the offense. District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
in a state prosecution for simple battery, an offense carrying a possible prison sentence of two years. Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
has included within the definition of the crime itself a judgment about the seriousness of the offense. See Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Cheff v. PageSearch
-
and MR. JUSTICE STEWART, adhering to the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN in Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 194 , 391 U. S. 215 , and in Part I of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN's separate opinion in Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
-
creating the offense specifies a maximum penalty, then, of course, that penalty is the relevant criterion. See Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
command that those accused of criminal offenses be afforded their fundamental right to a jury trial. See, e.g., Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
an alarming expansion of the nonjury contempt power, the excessive use of which we have so recently limited in Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
supra, and Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
-
period Page 395 U. S. 154 of up to five years. Despite our recent efforts to curb its use ( see Carroll v. PrincessSearch
-
liberated contempt power, too awesome a weapon to place in the hands of one man. The situation presented by Walker v. BirminghamSearch
-
a trial court need not bother with a fair adversary hearing before committing the offenders to prison, for Mempa v. RhaySearch
-
and thus tried without a jury. See District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
Burns v. UnitedSearch
-
penalty of imprisonment for any amount of time, I doubt if I could ever hold it petty. ( See my dissent in Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
he is any the less charged with a crime. See Green v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 356 U. S. 165 , 356 U. S. 193 (dissenting opinion), and United States v. BarnettSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Frank v. UnitedSearch
-
See Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
-
See Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Cheff v. PageSearch
-
See Dyke v. TaylorSearch
-
and Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
-
Carroll v. PrincessSearch
-
Walker v. BirminghamSearch
-
See District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
See Green v. UnitedSearch
-
and United States v. BarnettSearch
-
United States v. MurraySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial