Citation network
Ludwig Vs. Massachusetts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 30, 1976
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. 618 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Ludwig v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U.S. 618 (1976) Ludwig v. MassachusettsSearch
-
of serious crimes, and the manner specified for exercising this right is fair and not unduly burdensome. Callan v. WilsonSearch
-
the second tier impermissibly burden the accused's right to a jury Page 427 U. S. 619 trial. North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
I Massachusetts is one of several States having a two-tier system of trial courts for criminal cases. See Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
he is limited, instead, to a challenge to his sentence. Commonwealth v. CrapoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Supp. 1976-1977). See also Mann v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Jones v. RobbinsSearch
-
Unlike the two-tier Kentucky system under consideration in Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
b) and (c) (1969 and Supp. 1976-1977). See Almeida v. LuceySearch
-
Boyle v. RegistrarSearch
-
N.E.2d 467 (1975). Relying on its earlier decision in Whitmarsh v. CommonwealthSearch
-
See Costarelli v. MassachusettsSearch
-
jury trial, and whether certain features of the 18th century common law jury are inherent in the right. In Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
to deprive him of his liberty without affording him an opportunity to have his guilt determined by a jury. Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
York, 399 U. S. 66 (1970) (plurality opinion). In Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
U. S. 78 (1970), and in Apodaca v. OregonSearch
-
Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
U.S. at 399 U. S. 100 , quoting Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
the State is required to furnish him counsel without cost before he may be deprived of his liberty. Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
burdens the exercise of an accused's right to a trial by jury is controlled by the decisions in North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
U. S. 711 (1969), and Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
of the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, made applicable to the States by means of the Fourteenth. Klopfer v. NorthSearch
-
is to increase efficiency. Our disposition of this case does not require us to disturb the holding in Callan v. WilsonSearch
-
Brief for Appellant 66. Appellee responds by quoting from North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
At least since 1896, when United States v. BallSearch
-
of the Double Jeopardy Clause and its interpretation were canvassed by the Court only last Term in United States v. WilsonSearch
-
and Serfass v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WilsonSearch
-
these Page 427 U. S. 632 circumstances, it long has been clear that the State may reprosecute. United States v. BallSearch
-
failure to take an appeal would constitute a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to trial by jury. See Boykin v. AlabamaSearch
-
of opinion concerning the validity of the two-tier procedure typified by the Massachusetts system. Compare State v. HollidaySearch
-
R.I. 93, 280 A.2d 333 (1971), with Manns v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Walker v. DillardSearch
-
Whitmarsh v. CommonwealthSearch
-
course, that a person who is accused of crime may receive a fair trial before a magistrate or judge. Cf. Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
constitutional right to be tried by a jury reflects that judgment. In this respect, the present case differs from Ward v. VillageSearch
-
In support of the contrary contention, appellant cites United States v. JacksonSearch
-
right, by a method such as that, may be corrected, of course, in individual instances. See North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment is not identical to that guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. See my opinion in Apodaca v. OregonSearch
-
I add only that Callan v. WilsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial