Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Doyle Vs. Ohio

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 17, 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

64 entries 4 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Oregon Vs. Hass US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1975
  2. Miranda Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1966
  3. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  4. United States Vs. Hale US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1975
  5. U.S. 610 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Doyle v. Ohio
    Search
  6. U.S. 610 (1976) Doyle v. Ohio
    Search
  7. the course of their state criminal trials petitioners, who, after arrest, were given warnings in line with Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  8. a question left open last Term in United States v. Hale
    Search
  9. position, the State emphasizes the importance of cross-examination Page 426 U. S. 617 in general, see Brown v. United
    Search
  10. that were inadmissible as evidence of guilt because of an officer's failure to follow Miranda's dictates. Harris v. New
    Search
  11. Walder v. United
    Search
  12. The warnings mandated by that case, as a prophylactic means of safeguarding Fifth Amendment rights, see Michigan v. Tucker
    Search
  13. See United States v. Hale
    Search
  14. Page 426 U. S. 619 MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in the judgment in United States v. Hale
    Search
  15. Together with No. 75-5015, Wood v. Ohio
    Search
  16. Trial transcript in Ohio v. Wood
    Search
  17. Trial transcript in Ohio v. Doyle
    Search
  18. function of a trial by presenting tailored defenses insulated from effective challenge. See generally Fitzpatrick v. United
    Search
  19. Post at 426 U. S. 621 . But in United States v. Hale
    Search
  20. A somewhat analogous situation was presented in Johnson v. United
    Search
  21. the federal courts. But the necessity for elementary fairness is not unique to the federal criminal system. Cf. Raley v. Ohio
    Search
  22. story, but rather to challenge the defendant's testimony as to his behavior following arrest. Cf. United States v. Fairchild
    Search
  23. cross-examination about their silence at the time of arrest, petitioners primarily rely on the statement in Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  24. it belied their trial testimony. Second, the dictum in the footnote in Miranda relies primarily upon Griffin v. California
    Search
  25. prohibited the prosecution's use of the defendant's silence in its case in chief. But as long ago as Raffel v. United
    Search
  26. Moreover, Mr. Chief Justice Warren, the author of the Court's opinion in Miranda, joined the opinion in Walder v. United
    Search
  27. Nevertheless, unless and until this Court overrules Raffel v. United
    Search
  28. No. 10656, Common Pleas Court, Tuscarawas County, Ohio (hereafter Doyle Tr.), 269. Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  29. See Massiah v. United
    Search
  30. Alderman v. United
    Search
  31. therefore, use at trial the fact that he stood mute or claimed his privilege in the face of accusation. Cf. Griffin v. California
    Search
  32. Developments in the Law -- Confessions, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 935, 1041-1044 (1966). See also Bram v. United
    Search
  33. relevant cross-examination without the right to reclaim Fifth Amendment protection on a selective basis. Fitzpatrick v. United
    Search
  34. Brown v. United
    Search
  35. has more to gain and less to lose than an ordinary witness from fabrications upon the witness stand. Cf. Reagan v. United
    Search
  36. Taylor v. United
    Search
  37. has allowed evidence to be used for impeachment purposes that would be inadmissible as evidence of guilt. In Walder v. United
    Search
  38. although such evidence clearly was inadmissible for any purpose in the prosecution's case in chief. In Harris v. New
    Search
  39. a lawyer, but before he had been furnished with counsel as Miranda requires in such circumstances. Oregon v. Hass
    Search
  40. Harris v. New
    Search
  41. Supp. 1973). Indeed, if a defendant has been indicated, no hearing need be held. State v. Morris
    Search
  42. of this Court's supervisory powers, have diminished the force of Raffel in the federal courts. United States v. Hale
    Search
  43. Stewart v. United
    Search
  44. Grunewald v. United
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court Doyle v. Ohio
    Search
  46. Walder v. United
    Search
  47. Michigan v. Tucker
    Search
  48. Wood v. Ohio
    Search
  49. Ohio v. Wood
    Search
  50. Ohio v. Doyle
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial