Citation network
Chambers Vs. Mississippi
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 21, 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
-
U.S. 284 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
U.S. 284 (1973) Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
Page 410 U. S. 295 See also Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
his conscience so that the jury might judge for itself whether McDonald's testimony was worthy of belief. Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. E.g., Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
and requires that the competing interest be closely examined. Berger v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Page 410 U. S. 296 Clark v. LansfordSearch
-
and he is not available in order that his demeanor and credibility may be assessed by the jury. California v. GreenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
exception for declarations, like McDonald's in this case, that are against the penal interest of the declarant. Brown v. StateSearch
-
Declarations against penal interest have also been excluded in federal courts under the authority of Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
confession here was in a very real sense self-incriminatory and unquestionably against interest. See United States v. HarrisSearch
-
He could have been cross-examined by the State, and his demeanor and responses weighed by the jury. See California v. GreenSearch
-
The availability of McDonald significantly distinguishes this case from the prior Mississippi precedent, Brown v. StateSearch
-
Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense. E.g., Webb v. TexasSearch
-
Washington v. TexasSearch
-
brief on the merits, or at oral argument -- that the questions are not properly reviewable by this Court. See Street v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 63 , 278 U. S. 67 -68 (1928). Unlike Henry v. MississippiSearch
-
See Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
Forrest County Coop. Assn. v. McCaffreySearch
-
People v. SpriggsSearch
-
People v. LettrichSearch
-
People v. BrownSearch
-
Hines v. CommonwealthSearch
-
United States v. AnnunziatoSearch
-
Scolari v. UnitedSearch
-
cross-examination, and might well have known at the time he made the statement that he would not suffer for it. Brown v. StateSearch
-
not properly before the court or for some other reason. As my Brother REHNQUIST points out, the Court stated in Street v. NewSearch
-
the three opinions in Henry v. StateSearch
-
and we not only noted the existence of the rule, but recognized that it served a legitimate state interest. Henry v. MississippiSearch
-
Freeman v. StateSearch
-
In Carter v. StateSearch
-
Id. at 528, 21 So.2d at 404. The court proceeded to consider the issue. In Brooks v. StateSearch
-
The reach of these cases was left in doubt when, in affirming the judgment in Henry v. StateSearch
-
obtained evidence because the matter had not been presented to the trial court. The case did not come within Brooks v. StateSearch
-
Henry v. StateSearch
-
In King v. StateSearch
-
of allegedly illegally obtained evidence as if the appellant had made timely objection. Moreover, in Wood v. StateSearch
-
for the first time. Where this leaves the matter of our jurisdiction in the light of decisions such as Williams v. GeorgiaSearch
-
bypass, and, affirming on appeal, 198 So.2d 213 (1967), the Mississippi Supreme Court did not mention Brooks v. StateSearch
-
Congress upon this Court's authority to review judgments of state courts. It is a jurisdictional limitation, Cardinale v. LouisianaSearch
-
Oxley Stave Co. v. ButlerSearch
-
County, 166 U. S. 648 , 166 U. S. 655 (1897). In Street v. NewSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Chambers v. MississippiSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial