Citation network
Rogers Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 17, 1975
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
-
Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 422 U.S. 35 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 422 U.S. 35 (1975) Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
Fillippon v. AlbionSearch
-
Vein Slate Co., 250 U. S. 76 , 250 U. S. 81 , and, as Shields v. UnitedSearch
-
authorization does not affect the validity of the verdict, and may be disregarded by the sentencing judge. See Cook v. UnitedSearch
-
Practice 11 31.07 (2d ed 1975). We deal here not merely with a potential defect in the verdict. In Fillippon v. AlbionSearch
-
Ibid. Page 422 U. S. 39 In Shields v. UnitedSearch
-
s counsel should have been given an opportunity to be heard before the trial judge responded. See, e.g., United States v. SchorSearch
-
United States v. GlickSearch
-
United States v. SchorSearch
-
the court should have reminded the jury that the recommendation would not be binding in any way. But see United States v. DavidsonSearch
-
sentencing function, and should reach its verdict without regard to what sentence might be imposed. See United States v. LouieSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
supra at 404. Cf. United States v. PatrickSearch
-
a), see Watts v. UnitedSearch
-
notice them notwithstanding petitioner's failure to raise the issue in the Court of Appeals or in this Court. Silber v. UnitedSearch
-
Brotherhood of Carpenters v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 330 U. S. 395 , 330 U. S. 411 -412 (1947). Cf. United States v. DavidsonSearch
-
sentence on the last four counts was to run concurrently and to be suspended during good behavior. Cf. United States v. DavidsonSearch
-
originated with the early case of Ragansky v. UnitedSearch
-
as to its correctness. Watts v. UnitedSearch
-
would support the conviction of anyone making a statement that would reasonably be understood as a threat, see Roy v. UnitedSearch
-
as long as the defendant intended to make the statement and knew the meaning of the words used, see Ragansky v. UnitedSearch
-
We have long been reluctant to infer that a negligence standard was intended in criminal statutes, see Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
we should be particularly wary of adopting such a standard for a statute that regulates pure speech. See Abrams v. UnitedSearch
-
debate that the First Amendment is intended to protect. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSearch
-
See United States v. LincolnSearch
-
United States v. ComptonSearch
-
Roy v. UnitedSearch
-
Watts v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. PatilloSearch
-
from Ragansky v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 253 F. 643 (CA7 1918), and supplemented that definition with language taken directly from Roy v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
Shields v. UnitedSearch
-
See Cook v. UnitedSearch
-
In Fillippon v. AlbionSearch
-
In Shields v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. DavidsonSearch
-
See United States v. LouieSearch
-
Cf. United States v. PatrickSearch
-
Court. Silber v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. United States v. DavidsonSearch
-
of Ragansky v. UnitedSearch
-
Ragansky v. UnitedSearch
-
Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
See Abrams v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial