Citation network
Peters Vs. Kiff
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 22, 1972
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 493 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Peters v. KiffSearch
-
U.S. 493 (1972) Peters v. KiffSearch
-
his conviction on the ground that Negroes were arbitrarily excluded from the grand jury that indicted him. Hill v. TexasSearch
-
jury and the petit jury. For the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury does not apply in a state prosecution. Hurtado v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to a petit jury, made applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
not apply to state trials that took place before the decision in Duncan, as petitioner's trial did. De Stefano v. WoodsSearch
-
of any other well defined class of citizens, offends a number of related constitutional values. In Strauder v. WestSearch
-
the Court upheld his claim. In Virginia v. RivesSearch
-
to vindicate these interests of the excluded jurors and the stigmatized class. Page 407 U. S. 500 Carter v. JurySearch
-
White v. CrookSearch
-
it destroys the possibility that the jury will reflect a representative cross-section of the community. In Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
form of proceeding. Due process requires a competent and impartial tribunal in administrative hearings, Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
U. S. 254 , 397 U. S. 271 (1970), and in trials to a judge, Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
and the law. Thus, a defendant cannot, consistent with due process, be subjected to trial by an insane juror, Jordan v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 167 , 225 U. S. 176 (1912), by jurors who are intimidated by the threat of mob violence, Moore v. DempseySearch
-
by jurors who Page 407 U. S. 502 have formed a fixed opinion about the case from newspaper publicity, Irvin v. DowdSearch
-
applicable in state trials, and does not depend on it. Thus, it has been invoked in trials to a judge, e.g., Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
and in pre- Duncan state jury trials, e.g., Turner v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 532 , 381 U. S. 550 (1965). In Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
notwithstanding the possibility that he might resist the temptation to be influenced by that interest. And in Turner v. LouisianaSearch
-
is necessary to decide on principle which side shall suffer the consequences of unavoidable uncertainty. See Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
selection system of Muscogee County, Georgia, was explored in detail and struck down as unconstitutional in Vanleeward v. RutledgeSearch
-
Allen v. StateSearch
-
State v. MadisonSearch
-
rule in Fay v. NewSearch
-
Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
Arnold v. NorthSearch
-
Hill v. TexasSearch
-
Smith v. TexasSearch
-
Rogers v. AlabamaSearch
-
Jones v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Martin v. TexasSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Peters v. KiffSearch
-
Hurtado v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial