Citation network
Parker Vs. Randolph
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 29, 1979
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. 62 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Parker v. RandolphSearch
-
U.S. 62 (1979) Parker v. RandolphSearch
-
was also admitted into evidence over his objection that it had been obtained in violation of his rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Court upheld the convictions, holding that admission of respondents' confessions did not violate the rule of Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE STEWART, and MR. JUSTICE WHITE joined, and announced the judgment of the Court. In Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid., quoting State v. ElliottSearch
-
and that introduction of respondent Pickens' uncounseled written confession had violated his rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Catanzaro v. MancusiSearch
-
F.2d 296, 300 (1968), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 942 (1970). Accord, United States ex rel. Stanbridge v. ZelkerSearch
-
Duff v. ZelkerSearch
-
U.S. 978 (1978). Page 442 U. S. 69 II In Delli Paoli v. UnitedSearch
-
reversible error. Little more than a decade later, however, Dell Paoli was expressly overruled in Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
as that introduced in Bruton automatically requires reversal of an otherwise valid conviction. See Harrington v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
conferred by the Sixth Amendment is a safeguard to ensure the fairness and accuracy of criminal trials, see Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
corpus relief to respondent Pickens on the additional Page 442 U. S. 77 ground that his rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
have expressly ruled that the Bruton rule applies in the context of interlocking confessions, see Hodges v. RoseSearch
-
United States v. DiGilioSearch
-
F.2d 972 981-983 (CA3 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Lupo v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977), and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has done so impliedly, see Ignacio v. GuamSearch
-
of interlocking confessions and that, even if it does, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Mack v. MaggioSearch
-
United States v. SpinksSearch
-
Metropolis v. TurnerSearch
-
United States v. WaltonSearch
-
denied, 429 U.S. 1025 (1976). State court decisions in this area are in similar disarray. Compare, e.g., Stewart v. StateSearch
-
Ark. 753, 519 S.W.2d 733 (1975), and People v. MollSearch
-
N.Y.2d 1, 256 N.E.2d 185, cert. denied sub nom. Stanbridge v. NewSearch
-
York, 398 U.S. 911 (1970), with People v RosochackiSearch
-
Ill.2d 483, 244 N.E.2d 136 (1969), and State v. OliverSearch
-
In Harrington v. CaliforniaSearch
-
occasions, this Court has applied the harmless error doctrine to claimed violations of Bruton. In Schneble v. FloridaSearch
-
U.S. at 405 U. S. 428 (emphasis added) . In Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
In Opper v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 348 U. S. 95 (footnote omitted) See, e.g., Blumenthal v. UnitedSearch
-
this Court's decisions in Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
and Harrington v. CaliforniaSearch
-
We think that the dissent fails both to note significant factual distinctions between the present case and Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
fully argued and disposed of on their merits and unargued summary dispositions, a difference which we noted in Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Court denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, expressly relying on the authority of Delli Paoli v. UnitedSearch
-
for further consideration in light of Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 391 U. S. 123 , and Roberts v. RussellSearch
-
in Hopper. The dissent, we believe, likewise misreads Harrington v. CaliforniaSearch
-
supra, and Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
For me, any error that existed in the admission of the confessions of the codefendants, in violation of Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Parker v. RandolphSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial