Citation network
Ross Vs. Moffitt
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 17, 1974
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. 600 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
U.S. 600 (1974) Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
far less than the handicap borne by an indigent defendant denied counsel on his initial appeal of right, Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
persons an equal opportunity to enjoy the right is, by Page 417 U. S. 602 its terms, inapplicable. Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 12 , and Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. We are asked in this case to decide whether Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
We granted certiorari, 414 U.S. 1128, to consider the Court of Appeals' decision in light of Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Court, in the past 20 years, has given extensive consideration to the rights of indigent persons on appeal. In Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the traditional principle that a State is not obliged to provide any appeal at all for criminal defendants. McKane v. DurstonSearch
-
U. S. 684 (1894). The cases encompassed a variety of circumstances, but all had a common theme. For example, Lane v. BrownSearch
-
If the public defender declined to request one, the indigent prisoner seeking to appeal had no recourse. In Draper v. WashingtonSearch
-
review the determination of frivolousness, since no transcript or its equivalent was made available to him. In Smith v. BennettSearch
-
had required a filing fee in order to process a state habeas corpus application by a convicted defendant, and in Burns v. OhioSearch
-
cut off appeal rights for indigents while leaving open avenues of appeal for more affluent persons. In Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
so long as the result does not amount to a denial of due process or an 'invidious discrimination.' Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
to counsel is fundamental and binding upon the States by virtue of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
without a criminal defendant's consent, it is clear that the State need not provide any appeal at all. McKane v. DurstonSearch
-
a State then acts unfairly by refusing to provide counsel to indigent defendants at every stage of the way. Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. at 372 U. S. 357 (Emphasis in original.) The Court in Burns v. OhioSearch
-
San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSearch
-
and that indigents have an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly within the adversary system. Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
by virtue of his indigency, Lane v. BrownSearch
-
in criminal cases to direct appeals taken as of right. Thus, North Carolina has followed the mandate of Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
in every individual case, see Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
may deny certiorari even though it believes that the decision of the Court of Appeals was incorrect, see Peaseley v. VirginiaSearch
-
the State's appellate process. We think respondent was given that opportunity under the existing North Carolina system. v. MuchSearch
-
by persons seeking to file jurisdictional statements or petitions for certiorari in this Court. See, e.g., Drumm v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Mooney v. NewSearch
-
State v. MoffittSearch
-
Pennington v. PateSearch
-
Peters v. CoxSearch
-
with the opinion of Chief Judge Haynsworth for a unanimous panel in the Court of Appeals. 483 F.2d 650. In Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
review to a higher court, or to advise his client that such a petition would have no chance of succeeding. Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
it may not be enough simply to assert that there was error in the decision of the court below. Cf. Magnum Import Co. v. CotySearch
-
accuracy, brevity, and clarity in its determination of whether certiorari should be granted. See Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yan-TszeSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
and Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
In Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
Lane v. BrownSearch
-
In Draper v. WashingtonSearch
-
In Smith v. BennettSearch
-
Burns v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial