Citation network
Williams Vs. Florida
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. 78 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
U.S. 78 (1970) Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
incrimination guarantees the defendant the right to surprise the State with an alibi defense. II In Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
guarantee. Petitioner's trial for robbery on July 3, 1968, clearly falls within the scope of that holding. See Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights as applied to the States through the Fourteenth. We had occasion in Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
have assumed an affirmative answer to this question. The leading case so construing the Sixth Amendment is Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
See Patton v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Rasmussen v. UnitedSearch
-
challenge. As long as arbitrary exclusions of a particular class from the jury rolls are forbidden, see, e.g., Carter v. JurySearch
-
Ansin v. ThurstonSearch
-
E.g., State v. StumpSearch
-
State v. BaldwinSearch
-
People v. RakiecSearch
-
Commonwealth v. VecchiolliSearch
-
Jones v. SuperiorSearch
-
suggest, though, that such a procedure must necessarily raise serious constitutional problems. See State ex rel. Simoi v. BurkeSearch
-
See Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Thompson v. Utah'sSearch
-
A ruling that the Sixth Amendment refers to a common law jury was essential to the holding in Rassmussen v. UnitedSearch
-
E.g., Capital Traction Co. v. HofSearch
-
except the 12-man-jury requirement. Patton reaffirmed the 12-man requirement with a simple citation to Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
See Maryland v. BrownSearch
-
Ordinance of 1787, Art. II, 1 U.S.C. xxxviii (emphasis added). See Capital Traction Co. v. HofSearch
-
the 12-man requirement an essential feature of that institution, immune from change by the legislature. See State v. StarlingSearch
-
certain offenses carrying maximum penalties of one year's imprisonment. See Brief for Appellee A13-A15, Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
jury function, for example, as a device for insuring that the Government bear the heavier burden of proof. See Hibdon v. UnitedSearch
-
of that amendment. Had the question presented here arisen in a federal court before our decision in Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
to give evidence, testimony, or any other assistance to the State to aid it in convicting him of crime. Cf. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
disclosure, and not the substantive decision itself. This inevitability is clearly revealed by the citation to Jones v. SuperiorSearch
-
however, limited to the disclosure of evidence that the defendant has already decided he will use at trial. In State v. GroveSearch
-
part adopted in order to make the provisions of the Bill of Rights fully applicable to the States. See, e.g., Adamson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
States as well as the Federal Government, including the Fifth Amendment provision involved in this case. See Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
for the rest of his life, I dissent from the affirmance of his conviction. I adhere to the holding of Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 784 , 395 U. S. 795 (1969). At the same time, I adhere to the decision of the Court in Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
dissenting in No. 188, ante, p. 399 U. S. 66 , and concurring in the result in No. 927. In Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
in a federal court, would require a jury under the Sixth Amendment. Today the Court concludes, in No. 188, Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
At Page 399 U. S. 118 the same time, the Court holds in No. 927, Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
Accordingly, I dissent in No. 188 and, as to the jury issue, concur in the result in No. 927. Given Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
to ascertain the metes and bounds of the federal right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. See District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
Schick v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. AlabamaSearch
-
S. 478 (1888). This proposition was again put forward by Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. WongSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial