Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Frazier Vs. Cupp

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 22, 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

34 entries 2 linked 32 unlinked
Show
  1. Douglas Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1965
  2. Warden Vs. Hayden US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  3. U.S. 731 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Frazier v. Cupp
    Search
  4. U.S. 731 (1969) Frazier v. Cupp
    Search
  5. that his confession contravened the principles established by Escobedo v. Illinois
    Search
  6. U. S. 478 (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  7. s case, the court's limiting instructions were sufficient to protect petitioner's constitutional rights. Douglas v. Alabama
    Search
  8. U. S. 415 (1965), and Bruton v. United
    Search
  9. in Escobedo, and Miranda, which was decided after petitioner's trial, is inapplicable under Johnson v. New
    Search
  10. U. S. 415 , 380 U. S. 419 (1965), and that, as in Bruton v. United
    Search
  11. right of confrontation, guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. See Pointer v. Texas
    Search
  12. petitioner contends that Bruton v. United
    Search
  13. See Hopt v. Utah
    Search
  14. United States v. Socony-Vacuum
    Search
  15. alleged to have occurred would have been sufficient to constitute reversible constitutional error. Cf. Miller v. Pate
    Search
  16. further warnings, a written version was signed. Since petitioner was tried after this Court's decision in Escobedo v. Illinois
    Search
  17. U. S. 478 (1964), but before the decision in Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  18. U. S. 436 (1966), only the rule of the former case is directly applicable. Johnson v. New
    Search
  19. U.S. at 384 U. S. 444 -445. But Miranda does not apply to this case. This Court, in Johnson v. New
    Search
  20. Johnson v. New
    Search
  21. this is, of course, a circumstance quite relevant to a finding of voluntariness. Davis v. North
    Search
  22. Clewis v. Texas
    Search
  23. of an otherwise lawful search. Under this Court's past decisions, they were clearly permitted to seize it. Harris v. United
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Frazier v. Cupp
    Search
  25. Escobedo v. Illinois
    Search
  26. and Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  27. and Bruton v. United
    Search
  28. Bruton v. United
    Search
  29. the Constitution. See Pointer v. Texas
    Search
  30. Cf. Miller v. Pate
    Search
  31. Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  32. Davis v. North
    Search
  33. Clewis v. Texas
    Search
  34. Harris v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial