Citation network
Lakeside Vs. Oregon
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 22, 1978
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. 333 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Lakeside v. OregonSearch
-
U.S. 333 (1978) Lakeside v. OregonSearch
-
guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 435 U. S. 336 -341. (a) Though in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
This guarantee was held to be applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment in Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
Id. at 11. Less than a year Page 435 U. S. 337 later, the Court held in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
n. 6. It is settled in Oregon, however, that a defendant has an absolute right to require such an instruction. State v. PattonSearch
-
Hoffa v. UnitedSearch
-
B The petitioner's second argument is based upon his constitutional right to counsel. Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
the governor of the trial for the purpose of assuring its proper conduct and of determining questions of law.' Quercia v. UnitedSearch
-
Geders v. UnitedSearch
-
the protective instruction over the defendant's objection is not a constitutional violation. See, e.g., United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. McGannSearch
-
United States v. RimanichSearch
-
Mengarelli v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. SmithSearch
-
terms, that the giving of such an instruction in these circumstances is prejudicial error. See, e.g., Russell v. StateSearch
-
People v. MolanoSearch
-
Cal.App.2d 841, 61 Cal.Rptr. 821 (proscribed by Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Gross v. StateSearch
-
State v. KimballSearch
-
The Malloy decision overruled the long-settled doctrine of Twining v. NewSearch
-
Jersey, 211 U. S. 78 , and Adamson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 46 . See Snyder v. MassachusettsSearch
-
In Tehan v. UnitedSearch
-
States ex rel. Shott, 382 U. S. 406 , it was held that the rule of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
long been established that a defendant in a federal criminal trial has that right as a matter of statutory law. Bruno v. UnitedSearch
-
The petitioner also relies upon a remark in the dissenting opinion in United States v. GaineySearch
-
Compulsion was also found to be present in Brooks v. TennesseeSearch
-
Bruno v. UnitedSearch
-
Becher v. UnitedSearch
-
to make. The Constitution commands that the decision be made free of any compulsion by the State. In Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
State v. CleavesSearch
-
Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
to the statutory prohibition against comment on the failure of the accused to testify. But, as we stated in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
United States v. DavisSearch
-
State v. CaronSearch
-
by comparing its reasoning to the analysis in an earlier case that followed Griffin more faithfully. In Brooks v. TennesseeSearch
-
of this sort was given over the defendant's objection. Ante at 435 U. S. 341 n. 12. See Becher v. UnitedSearch
-
Hand did not foresee Griffin, just as he did not foresee developments that were nearer at hand. In United States v. BrunoSearch
-
See People v. HamptonSearch
-
State v. WhiteSearch
-
Villines v. StateSearch
-
Russell v. StateSearch
-
People v. HorrianSearch
-
Cal.App.2d 841, 61 Cal.Rptr. 821 (1967). See also United States v. SmithSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lakeside v. OregonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial