Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Wilson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 19, 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

63 entries 3 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Taylor Vs. Hayes US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1974
  2. Hale Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
  3. Groppi Vs. Leslie US Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1972
  4. U.S. 309 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wilson
    Search
  5. U.S. 309 (1975) United States v. Wilson
    Search
  6. The District Court properly imposed summary contempt punishment under the circumstances. Harris v. United
    Search
  7. well as to provide the recalcitrant witness with some incentive to testify. P. 421 U. S. 316 . (c) Harris v. United
    Search
  8. Page 421 U. S. 312 and, relying on Goldberg v. United
    Search
  9. U. S. 314 Appeals considered itself bound by its own previous decisions, and by this Court's decision in Harris v. United
    Search
  10. United States v. Pace
    Search
  11. United States v. Marra
    Search
  12. of Appeals for the Second Circuit apparently conflicts with that of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Baker v. Eisenstadt
    Search
  13. here each refusal was in the context of a face-to-face encounter between the judge and respondents. See Illinois v. Allen
    Search
  14. Cooke v. United
    Search
  15. proceedings that literally disrupted the progress of the trial, and hence the orderly administration of justice. Yates v. United
    Search
  16. can be cured swiftly by bodily removing the offender from the courtroom, or by physical restraints, Illinois v. Allen
    Search
  17. has consistently been recognized to be no more than a restatement of the law existing when the Rule was adopted, Bloom v. Illinois
    Search
  18. and the law at that time allowed summary punishment for refusals to testify, Hale v. Henkel
    Search
  19. Nelson v. United
    Search
  20. Blair v. United
    Search
  21. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  22. Savin, 131 U. S. 267 (1889). III The Court of Appeals considered itself bound by language in Harris v. United
    Search
  23. should be used in contempt cases. Anderson v. Dunn
    Search
  24. Wheat. 204, 19 U. S. 231 (1821). See Taylor v. Hayes
    Search
  25. granted was not coextensive with the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Kastigar v. United
    Search
  26. predecessor of the statute was enacted to limit the broad power granted by the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73. Nye v. United
    Search
  27. refusals, he would hold them in contempt. He also offered them an opportunity to speak in their own behalf. Groppi v. Leslie
    Search
  28. In Shillitani v. United
    Search
  29. of immediate confinement for civil contempt would have provided little incentive for them to testify. Contrast Anglin v. Johnston
    Search
  30. App 6. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, concurring. In Brown v. United
    Search
  31. within the meaning of Rule 42(a). 359 U.S. at 359 U. S. 47 -52. Less than seven years later, in Harris v. United
    Search
  32. could have been interrupted to compel them to serve an intervening sentence for contempt. See, e.g., United States v. Liddy
    Search
  33. Anglin v. Johnston
    Search
  34. to testify at a trial. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded on the ground that Harris v. United
    Search
  35. States, 382 U. S. 162 (1965), and the Court of Appeals' own prior decision in United States v. Marra
    Search
  36. Page 421 U. S. 325 The Court today declines the Government's invitation to overrule Harris v. United
    Search
  37. of the dignity of the Page 421 U. S. 327 court.' We start from the premise long ago stated in Anderson v. Dunn
    Search
  38. Johnson v. Mississippi
    Search
  39. have testified as ordered, but requested a different judge for sentencing on the robbery charge. Cf. Goldberg v. United
    Search
  40. Harris overruled the broader reach given subdivision (a) in Brown v. United
    Search
  41. In United States v. Marra
    Search
  42. Id. at 1202. See also United States v. Pace
    Search
  43. Panico v. United
    Search
  44. has broad discretion to specify the time for preparation of a defense to a charge of criminal contempt. See Nilva v. United
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wilson
    Search
  46. Harris v. United
    Search
  47. Goldberg v. United
    Search
  48. the First Circuit, Baker v. Eisenstadt
    Search
  49. See Illinois v. Allen
    Search
  50. Yates v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial