Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

California Vs. Byers

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 17, 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

68 entries 5 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Albertson Vs. Sacb US Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1965
  2. Schmerber Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1966
  3. United States Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
  4. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  5. United States Vs. Burr US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1895
  6. U.S. 424 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court California v. Byers
    Search
  7. U.S. 424 (1971) California v. Byers
    Search
  8. the strong policies in favor of a disclosure called for by statutes like the one challenged here. United States v. Sullivan
    Search
  9. The components of this requirement were articulated in Albertson v. SACB
    Search
  10. U. S. 70 (1965), and later in Marchetti v. United
    Search
  11. States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), Grosso v. United
    Search
  12. States, 390 U. S. 62 (1968), and Haynes v. United
    Search
  13. E.g., Marchetti v. United
    Search
  14. E.g., Albertson v. SACB
    Search
  15. Marchetti v. United
    Search
  16. U.S. at 382 U. S. 79 , construing United States v. Sullivan
    Search
  17. words, or to give samples of handwriting, fingerprints, or Page 402 U. S. 432 blood. United States v. Wade
    Search
  18. Hoffman v. United
    Search
  19. States, 341 U. S. 479 , 341 U. S. 486 (1951). In Schmerber v. California
    Search
  20. this procedure over petitioner's claim that he had been compelled to furnish evidence against himself. See also Holt v. United
    Search
  21. within the meaning of the Constitution. Schmerber v. California
    Search
  22. Amendment privilege even though the speaking might well have led to identifying him as the bank robber. United States v. Wade
    Search
  23. a motor vehicle, is no more incriminating than the tax return, linked with the disclosure of income, in United States v. Sullivan
    Search
  24. See Shapiro v. United
    Search
  25. stopped and identified himself, pursuant to the statute, could decline to make any further statement. United States v. Sullivan
    Search
  26. classification of Schmerber v. California
    Search
  27. test of Hoffman v. United
    Search
  28. offered at trial is the identification evidence of third-party witnesses, it still does not follow from United States v. Wade
    Search
  29. of the risk of incrimination, developed by the Court primarily in the context of the criminal process, see Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  30. Byers v. Justice
    Search
  31. to witnesses as long as a substantial risk of self-incrimination can be made out by the witness. See McCarthy v. Arndstein
    Search
  32. Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  33. whose decision we are reviewing, it must be recognized that a reading of our more recent cases -- especially Marchetti v. United
    Search
  34. States, 390 U. S. 39 (1968), and Grosso v. United
    Search
  35. in yielding to state compulsion. Thus, Marchetti and Grosso (and the cases they overruled, United States v. Kahner
    Search
  36. U. S. 22 (1953), and Lewis v. United
    Search
  37. real danger v. imaginary
    Search
  38. standard, see Emspak v. United
    Search
  39. imposed on the individual in order to determine the constitutionality of those requirements. See Marchetti v. United
    Search
  40. Grosso v. United
    Search
  41. only as an indicium of genuine incriminating risk as assessed from the individual's point of view. See also Haynes v. United
    Search
  42. Leary v. United
    Search
  43. That inference from our past cases was the central premise of the California Supreme Court's opinion. See Byers v. Justice
    Search
  44. premise and looking at our cases defining the test Page 402 U. S. 439 for risks of incrimination, see Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  45. Rogers v. United
    Search
  46. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  47. implications of adhering to the premise which the California Supreme Court drew from our prior cases. In United States v. Sullivan
    Search
  48. gross income, will, when combined with other evidence derived from independent sources, incriminate him. United States v. Burr
    Search
  49. doctrine of Shapiro v. United
    Search
  50. are Page 402 U. S. 446 subject to the disclosure requirements of the federal wagering tax. ( Marchetti v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial