Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Parker Vs. North Carolina

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 04, 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

77 entries 8 linked 69 unlinked
Show
  1. BoykIn Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Jun 02, 1969
  2. Chambers Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1940
  3. Haynes Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · May 27, 1963
  4. Haley Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1948
  5. United States Vs. Tateo US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1964
  6. Mcmann Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · May 04, 1970
  7. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  8. Fay Vs. Noia US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  9. Parker v. North
    Search
  10. Carolina - 397 U.S. 790 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Parker v. North
    Search
  11. Carolina, 397 U.S. 790 (1970) Parker v. North
    Search
  12. defendant's desire to limit the possible maximum penalty to less than that authorized if there is a jury trial. Brady v. United
    Search
  13. plea not open to attack on the ground that his counsel misjudged the admissibility of petitioner's confession. McMann v. Richardson
    Search
  14. arrested. Neither reason is sufficient to warrant setting aside Parker's plea. It may be that, under United States v. Jackson
    Search
  15. Even so, we determined in Brady v. United
    Search
  16. Nardone v. United
    Search
  17. Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  18. He suggests that he is entitled to plead again, a suggestion that we reject. For the reasons set out in McMann v. Richardson
    Search
  19. an adequate state ground precluding our reaching the grand jury issue if this case were here on direct review. See Fay v. Noia
    Search
  20. of the grand jury is open in a federal habeas corpus action we need not decide. Compare United States ex rel. Goldsby v. Page
    Search
  21. U. S. 799 Harpole, 263 F.2d 71 (C.A. 5th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 838 and 850 (1959), with Labat v. Bennett
    Search
  22. F.2d 698 (C.A. 5th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 991 (1967). See also McNeil v. North
    Search
  23. Repl. vol.). See State v. Rorie
    Search
  24. jury if, before the plea of guilty, the defendant raises his objection in a motion to quash the indictment. State v. Covington
    Search
  25. It may be that, under United States v. Jackson
    Search
  26. in No. 268, and concurring in the result in No. 270, ante, p. 397 U. S. 742 . In United States v. Jackson
    Search
  27. against compulsory self-incrimination and the right to a trial by jury, with all of its attendant safeguards. McCarthy v. United
    Search
  28. pointed out that a guilty plea is more serious than a confession because it is tantamount to a conviction. Kercheval v. United
    Search
  29. like any surrender of fundamental constitutional rights, reflect the unfettered choice of the defendant. See Boykin v. Alabama
    Search
  30. Machibroda v. United
    Search
  31. factors that the government may not constitutionally inject into the decisionmaking process. For example, in Garrity v. New
    Search
  32. judicial evaluation of the effect of particular external stimuli upon the state of mind of the accused. See Haley v. Ohio
    Search
  33. Bram v. United
    Search
  34. States, 168 U. S. 532 , 168 U. S. 542 -543 (1897). More recently, we held in Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  35. U.S. at 378 U. S. 8 . Cf. Garrity v. New
    Search
  36. S. 810 that capital cases are treated differently, in some respects, from noncapital cases. See, e.g., Williams v. Georgia
    Search
  37. in determining whether a defendant has deliberately waived his constitutional rights. Thus, for example, in Green v. United
    Search
  38. U.S. at 355 U. S. 193 . So also, in Fay v. Noia
    Search
  39. of state post-conviction relief. The North Carolina courts have consistently taken the position that United States v. Jackson
    Search
  40. The precise contours of the Court's theory, developed principally in Brady v. United
    Search
  41. Herman v. Claudy
    Search
  42. Brown v. Mississippi
    Search
  43. Machibroda v. United
    Search
  44. government. With this view I am in disagreement for reasons more fully set forth in my dissenting opinion in McMann v. Richardson
    Search
  45. Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  46. Spano v. New
    Search
  47. Scott v. United
    Search
  48. McGrath v. LaVallee
    Search
  49. Eziere v. United
    Search
  50. Elksnis v. Gilligan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial