Citation network
Nelson Vs. O'Neil
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 01, 1971
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 622 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Nelson v. O'NeilSearch
-
U.S. 622 (1971) Nelson v. O'NeilSearch
-
applied for habeas corpus relief. The District Court ruled that respondent's conviction was improper under Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 391 U. S. 123 , and Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
Court for the Northern District of California, and, while the case was pending there, this Court decided Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
second, that any error there might have been was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the doctrine of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
so long as the declarant can be cross-examined on the witness stand at trial. This was confirmed in California v. GreenSearch
-
false. In affirming the District Court, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on the dictum of this Court in Douglas v. AlabamaSearch
-
U.S. at 391 U. S. 127 -128. This Court has never gone beyond that holding. In California v. GreenSearch
-
See Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 293 , held that the decision in Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
however, go further and hold that, because respondent's conviction became final before this Court decided Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
he cannot avail himself of that new rule in subsequent federal habeas corpus proceedings. See Mackey v. UnitedSearch
-
constitutional standards. For this is precisely what the California courts did in this case. See, e.g., Delli Paoli v. UnitedSearch
-
federal-state balance should be supported by more persuasive considerations than those which led the Court, in Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
it should not be considered against respondent. I think our cases compel the conclusion that it may not. In Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
In Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
could be considered as evidence only against Rappe, and not against Roberts. As in Bruton, we reversed. Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
See People v. ArandaSearch
-
People v. RobertsSearch
-
under state law against O'Neil. But, as my Brother BRENNAN points out and as this Court recognized in Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Nelson v. O'NeilSearch
-
Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
and Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
California v. GreenSearch
-
In California v. GreenSearch
-
See Mackey v. UnitedSearch
-
Delli Paoli v. UnitedSearch
-
In Bruton v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial