Citation network
Michigan Vs. Tucker
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 433 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Michigan v. TuckerSearch
-
U.S. 433 (1974) Michigan v. TuckerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
questioned by police. Before the commencement of the interrogation (which antedated this Court's decision in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
would be appointed for him if he was indigent. The questioning took place before this Court's decision in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
but respondent's trial, at which he was convicted, took place afterwards. Under the holding of Johnson v. NewSearch
-
These events all occurred prior to the date on which this Court handed down its decision in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
to be persuasive by either federal court below. We do not have a situation such as that presented in Escobedo v. IllinoisSearch
-
noted previously, Escobedo is not to be broadly extended beyond the facts of that particular case. See Johnson v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 731 , 394 U. S. 739 (1969). This case also falls outside the rationale of United States v. WadeSearch
-
against which it was directed, have received considerable attention in the opinions of this Court. See, e.g., Kastigar v. UnitedSearch
-
Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
Ullmann v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson v. NewSearch
-
application has not been so limited. The right has been held applicable to proceedings before a grand jury, Counselman v. HitchcockSearch
-
to civil proceedings, McCarthy v. ArndsteinSearch
-
to congressional investigations, Watkins v. UnitedSearch
-
and to other statutory inquiries, Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
the processes were so unfair or unreasonable as to render a subsequent confession involuntary. See, e.g., Brown v. MississippiSearch
-
White v. TexasSearch
-
protection for a person facing police interrogation. This privilege had been made applicable to the States in Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
during the time period of the crime were not admitted against him at trial. This Court has also said, in Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way -- by removing the incentive to disregard it.' Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
respondent was questioned, these police officers were guided, quite rightly, by the principles established in Escobedo v. IllinoisSearch
-
actually made by respondent to the police, as we have observed, were excluded at trial in accordance with Johnson v. NewSearch
-
a particular suspect's insistence on innocence. Fact situations ranging from classical third-degree torture, Brown v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 278 (1936), to prolonged isolation from family or friends in a hostile setting, Gallegos v. ColoradoSearch
-
or mentally exhausted Page 417 U. S. 449 suspect to have a seemingly endless interrogation end, Watts v. IndianaSearch
-
defendant to make out its case. It may require the defendant to give physical evidence against himself, see Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Jenkins Page 417 U. S. 451 v. DelawareSearch
-
does not entitle the suspect to insist that statements made by him be excluded in every conceivable context. In Harris v. NewSearch
-
silence or refusal to take the witness stand may be an impermissible penalty on exercise of the privilege. See Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
For example, in Bram v. UnitedSearch
-
the text, the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was not held applicable against the States until Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
The opinion also relied upon Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Tehan v. UnitedSearch
-
and Terry v. OhioSearch
-
truth or falsity of a statement is not the determining factor in the decision whether or not to exclude it. Jackson v. DennoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial