Citation network
Apodaca Vs. Oregon
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 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
-
U.S. 404 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Apodaca v. OregonSearch
-
U.S. 404 (1972) Apodaca v. OregonSearch
-
The Sixth Amendment guarantee of a jury trial, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth ( Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
representative of a cross-section of the community, Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
in criminal cases specified by the Sixth Amendment and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. See Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
granted certiorari to consider this claim, 400 U.S. 901 (1970), which we now find to be without merit. In Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
II Our inquiry must focus upon the function served by the jury in contemporary society. Cf. Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
made mandatory on the States by virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
doubt at all. The reasonable doubt argument is rooted, in effect, in due process, and has been rejected in Johnson v. LouisianaSearch
-
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires jury panels to reflect a cross-section of the community. See, e.g., Whitus v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Smith v. TexasSearch
-
Strauder v. WestSearch
-
no members of his race are on the jury, but must prove that his race has been systematically excluded. See Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
Ruthenberg v. UnitedSearch
-
Apthorp v. BackusSearch
-
Grinnell v. PhillipsSearch
-
century America, where majority verdicts were permitted in the Carolinas, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania, see Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
See Andres v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 581 , 176 U. S. 586 (1900) (dictum). Cf. Springville v. ThomasSearch
-
to May and McCormick, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt first crystallized in the case of Rex v. FinnySearch
-
the United States in the early 19th century, where it was applied in civil as well as criminal cases, see, e.g., Ropps v. BarkerSearch
-
in the latter half of the century that the reasonable doubt standard ceased to be applied in civil cases, see Ellis v. BuzzellSearch
-
Me. 209 (1872), and that American courts began applying it in its modern form in criminal cases. See Commonwealth v. WebsterSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting. In Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
universally understood that a unanimous verdict is an essential element of a Sixth Amendment jury trial. See Andres v. UnitedSearch
-
Patton v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Apodaca v. OregonSearch
-
the Fourteenth. See Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
In Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
Cf. Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Johnson v. LouisianaSearch
-
Whitus v. GeorgiaSearch
-
See Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
Apthorp v. BackusSearch
-
Cf. Springville v. ThomasSearch
-
of Rex v. FinnySearch
-
Ropps v. BarkerSearch
-
Ellis v. BuzzellSearch
-
See Commonwealth v. WebsterSearch
-
In Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial