Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Foster Vs. California

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 01, 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

41 entries 3 linked 38 unlinked
Show
  1. irvine Vs. California US Supreme Court · Feb 08, 1954
  2. Stovall Vs. Denno US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
  3. United States Vs. Augenblick US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1969
  4. U.S. 440 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Foster v. California
    Search
  5. U.S. 440 (1969) Foster v. California
    Search
  6. to be represented by counsel at a lineup does not apply to lineups conducted prior to June 12, 1967, Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  7. due process. Pp. 394 U. S. 442 -443. 3. The question of whether the error was harmless under Chapman v. California
    Search
  8. In United States v. Wade
    Search
  9. U. S. 218 (1967), and Gilbert v. California
    Search
  10. not, however, apply to petitioner's case, for the lineups in which he appeared occurred before June 12, 1967. Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  11. as to be a denial of due process of law. Id. at 388 U. S. 302 . See Simmons v. United
    Search
  12. his height and by the fact that he was wearing a leather jacket similar to that worn by the robber. See United States v. Wade
    Search
  13. See Biggers v. Tennessee
    Search
  14. People v. Caruso
    Search
  15. inevitable. Page 394 U. S. 444 The respondent invites us to hold that any error was harmless under Chapman v. California
    Search
  16. at least until the Constitution they wrote had been amended in the manner they prescribed. Only last year, in Duncan v. Louisiana
    Search
  17. however, does not anywhere prohibit conduct deemed unfair by the courts. As we recently said in United States v. Augenblick
    Search
  18. these questions concerning the various advantages and disadvantages of admitting certain types of evidence. Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  19. Michelson v. United
    Search
  20. doctrine. See Chambers v. Florida
    Search
  21. these rules also raise factual issues involving a federal question whenever the error itself is federal. See Chapman v. California
    Search
  22. See Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  23. State v. Chance
    Search
  24. Nester v. State
    Search
  25. Mosley v. State
    Search
  26. his prior conviction for involvement in a crime of a similar type -- is constitutionally admissible. See Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  27. Ante at 394 U. S. 442 , quoting from Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  28. Malinski v. New
    Search
  29. Rochin v. California
    Search
  30. McCart v. Indianapolis
    Search
  31. U.S. Supreme Court Foster v. California
    Search
  32. and Gilbert v. California
    Search
  33. See Simmons v. United
    Search
  34. See United States v. Wade
    Search
  35. Duncan v. Louisiana
    Search
  36. Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  37. See Chambers v. Florida
    Search
  38. See Chapman v. California
    Search
  39. Rochin v. California
    Search
  40. McCart v. Indianapolis
    Search
  41. Chapman v. California
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial