Citation network
Davis Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 17, 1973
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
-
Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 411 U.S. 233 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 411 U.S. 233 (1973) Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
jury discrimination, not only during the criminal proceeding, but also later on collateral review. Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
briefs on the issue of waiver. It then denied the motion. In its memorandum opinion, it relied on Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Shotwell, supra, and Rule 12(b)(2). Because its decision is contrary to decisions of the Ninth Circuit in Fernandez v. MeierSearch
-
F.2d 974 (1969), and Chee v. UnitedSearch
-
motion alleged deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right, one which has been recognized since Strauder v. WestSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1880), his case is controlled by this Court's dispositions of Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 394 U. S. 217 (1969), and Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 373 U. S. 1 (1963), rather than Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
waived his claim of unconstitutional grand jury composition. See Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
U. S. 391 (1963), and Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
provision was designed to continue existing law, which, as exemplified by this Court's decision in United States v. GaleSearch
-
Rule Crim.Proc. 12, 18 U.S.C.App. This Court had occasion to consider the Rule's application in Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
allegations, he nonetheless contends that Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
See Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
Sunal v. LargeSearch
-
terms, the manner in which the claims of defects in the institution of criminal proceedings may be waived. See Singer v. UnitedSearch
-
is such that the prior inconsistent statute would be deemed to have been repealed. Cf. Sibbach v. WilsonSearch
-
on collateral review. Our conclusion in this regard is further buttressed by the Court's observation in Parker v. NorthSearch
-
of a substantial constitutional right, recognized by this Court as applicable to state criminal proceedings from Bush v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 110 (1883), through Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
courts had found that petitioners were not prejudiced in any way by the alleged illegalities, whereas, under Peters v. KiffSearch
-
system was approved in Scales v. UnitedSearch
-
this conclusion by the concurrence of all but one of the courts of appeals that have considered the issue. See Moore v. UnitedSearch
-
Juelich v. HarrisSearch
-
United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
Bustillo v. UnitedSearch
-
and Poliafico v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 237 F.2d 97 (CA6 1956). Contra, Fernandez v. MeierSearch
-
to present it as provided in Rule 12(b)(2) resulted in a waiver. Relying, however, on this Court's decisions in Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
U. S. 391 (1963), and Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
as a result of a deliberate bypass of the suppression procedures established in Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 41(e). Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
Dow v. Carnegie-IllinoisSearch
-
system was approved by this Court in Scales v. UnitedSearch
-
names of Negroes in the jury box used in 1968. That, of course, would have been unconstitutional. See Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
Hill v. TexasSearch
-
system was immune from constitutional attack. Indeed, Carter v. JurySearch
-
s decision today seems inconsistent Page 411 U. S. 248 with them. The Court purports to distinguish Kaufman v. UnitedSearch
-
motion to suppress evidence bars an attempt to raise the Fourth Amendment issue on appeal. See, e.g., United States v. EllisSearch
-
United States v. VolkellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial