Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Loper Vs. Beto

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 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

63 entries 4 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Linkletter Vs. Walker US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1965
  2. Kitchens Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1971
  3. United States Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1972
  4. Betts Vs. Brady US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1942
  5. U.S. 473 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Loper v. Beto
    Search
  6. U.S. 473 (1972) Loper v. Beto
    Search
  7. corpus in Federal District Court alleging that the previous convictions were constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  8. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concluded that the use of convictions constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  9. that the previous convictions used to impeach his credibility at the trial were constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  10. Page 405 U. S. 481 The starting point in considering this question is, of course, Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  11. The Court dealt with a sequel to Gideon in Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  12. To permit a conviction obtained in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  13. had played a part in the determination of the length of a convicted defendant's prison sentence. United States v. Tucker
    Search
  14. is to be forsaken, the conclusion is inescapable that the use of convictions constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  15. Gilday v. Scafati
    Search
  16. On the contrary, our decision in this case follows directly from the rationale under which Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  17. from this unconstitutional deprivation, Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  18. then this case cannot be decided under the ill-starred and discredited doctrine of Betts v. Brady
    Search
  19. the ground that the petitioner did not meet his burden of proving that the prior convictions were invalid. See Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  20. Losieau v. Sigler
    Search
  21. Williams v. Coiner
    Search
  22. F.2d 210, 212-213. The dissenting opinion relies upon our decision last Term in Kitchens v. Smith
    Search
  23. Compare the decisions in this case and in Walker v. Follette
    Search
  24. F.2d 167 (CA2 1971), with Gilday v. Scafati
    Search
  25. Tucker v. United
    Search
  26. and Howard v. Craven
    Search
  27. Simmons v. State
    Search
  28. be used for the purpose of impeachment. Most reported state decisions, however, hold the contrary. See Spaulding v. State
    Search
  29. Johnson v. State
    Search
  30. White v. State
    Search
  31. Subilosky v. Commonwealth
    Search
  32. This constitutional rule is wholly retroactive. Pickelsimer v. Wainwright
    Search
  33. was used for the purpose of directly rebutting a specific false statement made from the witness stand. Cf. Walker v. Follette
    Search
  34. F.2d 167, and see Harris v. New
    Search
  35. Walder v. United
    Search
  36. us, Loper was unrepresented by counsel and did not waive counsel at the time of the earlier convictions. Cf. Subilosky v. Moore
    Search
  37. application, at least to cases where the sentence was imposed prior to Gideon. Yet, by our disposition of Bates v. Nelson
    Search
  38. Burgett retroactive, and none has made the distinction suggested by the dissenting opinion. See, e.g., Walker v. Follette
    Search
  39. Losieau v. Siler
    Search
  40. Tucker v. Craven
    Search
  41. Oswald v. Crouse
    Search
  42. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, with whom MR. JUSTICE POWELL joins, dissenting. In 1942, this Court, in deciding Betts v. Brady
    Search
  43. Page 405 U. S. 486 had been denied by the state trial court. Betts was overruled in 1963 by Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  44. U. S. 847 , 401 U. S. 848 (1971). There is no basis, then, for a retroactive application of Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  45. if one or more of the prior convictions used to impeach Loper's credibility, even though fully valid under Betts v. Brady
    Search
  46. on his own motion, that he could have justified only by anticipating by 16 years this Court's overruling of Betts v. Brady
    Search
  47. of that decision. Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  48. make, he would have been very specifically refusing thereby to follow this Court's then controlling decision in Betts v. Brady
    Search
  49. of Gideon is 'sound,' then this case cannot be decided under the ill-starred and discredited doctrine of Betts v. Brady
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Loper v. Beto
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial