Citation network
Coleman Vs. Alabama
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 22, 1970
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
-
U.S. 1 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Coleman v. AlabamaSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1970) Coleman v. AlabamaSearch
-
were made of them were fatally tainted by a prejudicial station house lineup (which occurred prior to United States v. WadeSearch
-
U. S. 218 , and Gilbert v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the case to a grand jury, and to fix bail for bailable offenses. The trial court scrupulously followed Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
and seven months before petitioners' trial. Petitioners concede that, since the lineup occurred before United States v. WadeSearch
-
the accused to identifying witnesses before trial in the absence of counsel. Page 399 U. S. 4 Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
of them. This is a claim that must be determined on the totality of the surrounding circumstances. Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the principle of Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
include the pretrial type of arraignment where certain rights may be sacrificed or lost, Hamilton v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 52 , 368 U. S. 54 (1961), see White v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 59 (1963), and the pretrial lineup, United States v. WadeSearch
-
supra. Cf. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
compulsory self-incrimination includes a right to counsel at a pretrial custodial interrogation. See also Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
does not preclude him from availing himself of every defense he may have upon the trial of the case. Also, Pointer v. StateSearch
-
This Court is of course bound by this construction of the governing Alabama law, Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v RegentsSearch
-
Cf. White v. MarylandSearch
-
The test to be applied is whether the denial of counsel at the preliminary hearing was harmless error under Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 18 (1967). See United States v. WadeSearch
-
this opinion as they may deem appropriate to determine whether such denial of counsel was harmless error, see Gilbert v. CaliforniaSearch
-
in-court identification by the victim of the assault should have been suppressed. This claim relies mainly on Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
But I also argued in Stovall that the right to counsel at a lineup, declared that same day in United States v. WadeSearch
-
U. S. 218 (1967), should be held fully retroactive. Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in United States v. WadeSearch
-
of whether the denial of counsel at the preliminary hearing was harmless error under the Court's decision in Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and narrow meaning if we held that it did not include that phase. My Brother HARLAN, in his dissent in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
of the lengths to which the right to appointed counsel has been carried in recent decisions of this Court, see Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Mathis v. UnitedSearch
-
and Orozco v. TexasSearch
-
it in terms of considerations that I have recently expressed elsewhere. See my dissenting opinion in Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
York, decided today, post, p. 399 U. S. 117 , and my opinion concurring in the result in Welsh v. UnitedSearch
-
to leave the way open for that sort of speculation. II Despite my continuing disagreement with United States v. WadeSearch
-
identification. The majority's action results from the holding in Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
of that decision, the present lineup having taken place well before. For reasons explained in my dissent in Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
the way in which I think state cases of this kind should be judged ( see, e.g., my concurring opinion in Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
is as held in United States v. WadeSearch
-
emphasis supplied), was intended to reach such pre-indictment events. Cf. Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Coleman v. AlabamaSearch
-
and Gilbert v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
of Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
White v. MarylandSearch
-
Cf. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial