Citation network
Brooks Vs. Tennessee
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 07, 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
-
U.S. 605 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Brooks v. TennesseeSearch
-
U.S. 605 (1972) Brooks v. TennesseeSearch
-
holding that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by requiring the defendant to testify first. United States v. ShippSearch
-
Spaulding v. UnitedSearch
-
down the rule as an impermissible restriction on the defendant's freedom of choice. In the leading case of Bell v. StateSearch
-
Id. at 194, 5 So. at 389. In Nassif v. DistrictSearch
-
impeachment purposes that would be excluded from the State's case in chief because of constitutional defects. Harris v. NewSearch
-
we also regard the Tennessee rule as an infringement on the defendant's right of due process as defined in Ferguson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him,' Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
him from the stand for failing to testify first. The State makes no claim that this was harmless error, Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
holds that this statute does not give the defendant in a criminal case the right to take a discovery deposition. Craig v. StateSearch
-
by defendant concerning new matters, but may also preclude testimony offered in rebuttal of State's witnesses. Arnold v. StateSearch
-
to testify first for the State if he chooses to remain in the courtroom after other witnesses are sequestered. Smartt v. StateSearch
-
as more than minimally important. It has long been the rule in Tennessee that the statute may be waived, see Martin v. StateSearch
-
Nor was the jury authorized or encouraged to draw perhaps unwarranted inferences from his silence, as in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Petitioner was clearly not subjected to the obvious compulsion of being held in contempt for his silence, as in Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
in the absence of his testimony, the force of the State's evidence may lead the jury to convict. Cases such as Spevack v. KleinSearch
-
U. S. 511 (1967), and Gardner v. BroderickSearch
-
clearly inapposite. That should end the matter. However, the Court distorts both the context and content of Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
conclusion Page 406 U. S. 615 of a criminal trial. But, as the Court pointed out only last Term in McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the privilege and take the stand in order to avoid the possible imposition of the death penalty. See also Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
of counsel, yet this Court has never questioned such a rule and reaffirmed its validity only last Term. See McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
try what others have not tried or will not try. New State Ice Co. v. LiebmannSearch
-
Fay v. NewSearch
-
dominant role for defense counsel than that indicated by the language of the Constitution. While cases such as Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
of the order of proof at trial is a matter primarily entrusted to the discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Thiede v. UtahSearch
-
Nelson v. UnitedSearch
-
Horowitz v. BokronSearch
-
Small v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Brooks v. TennesseeSearch
-
of Bell v. StateSearch
-
In Nassif v. DistrictSearch
-
Harris v. NewSearch
-
Ferguson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Craig v. StateSearch
-
Arnold v. StateSearch
-
Smartt v. StateSearch
-
Martin v. StateSearch
-
and Gardner v. BroderickSearch
-
of Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
Term. See McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Fay v. NewSearch
-
Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial