Citation network
United States Vs. Raddatz
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 1980
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. 667 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. RaddatzSearch
-
U.S. 667 (1980) United States v. RaddatzSearch
-
information. II The focus of respondent's legal argument at the suppression hearing was that, under Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 378 U. S. 7 (1964), and Bram v. UnitedSearch
-
b) as part of the 1976 amendments to the Federal Magistrates Act in response to this Court's decision in Wingo v. WeddingSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Circuit's procedures for district court review of a magistrate's credibility recommendations as announced in Campbell v. UnitedSearch
-
of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations. See Mathews v. WeberSearch
-
Mullane v. CentralSearch
-
Morgan v. UnitedSearch
-
by reviewing the record compiled before the magistrate and making a final determination. In Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
United States v. JanisSearch
-
U. S. 534 , 365 U. S. 540 -544 (1961). In Lego v. TwomeySearch
-
Id. at 404 U. S. 486 . Accord, Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
may rely on hearsay and other evidence, even though that evidence would not be admissible at trial. United States v. MatlockSearch
-
Brinegar v. UnitedSearch
-
identity of an informant at trial, provided the identity is shown to be relevant and helpful to the defense, Roviaro v. UnitedSearch
-
it has never been held to require the disclosure of an informant's identity at a suppression hearing. McCray v. IllinoisSearch
-
Queen v. BertrandSearch
-
may defer to the findings of a hearing officer, that is not compelled. See, e.g., Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRBSearch
-
NLRB v. MackaySearch
-
Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. VincentSearch
-
have delegated the task of rendering a final decision on a suppression motion to a non-Art. III officer. See Palmore v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 423 U. S. 271 . On his Art. III claim, Crowell v. BensonSearch
-
Id. at 285 U. S. 60 . See also Ng Fung Ho v. WhiteSearch
-
Moreover, four years later, in St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 298 U. S. 53 . See also Estep v. UnitedSearch
-
Clark v. UeberseeSearch
-
himself. In that sense, the exclusion of involuntary confessions derives from the Amendment itself. United States v. JanisSearch
-
to consider anew a suppression motion previously denied is within its sound judicial discretion. See generally Gouled v. UnitedSearch
-
Rouse v. UnitedSearch
-
Mississippi v. LouisianaSearch
-
the Magistrate's judgment on credibility. I would reach a different conclusion. Under the standards set out in Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
was true, his motion to suppress evidence of his incriminating statements should have been granted. See Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
Bram v. UnitedSearch
-
a controversy that accords no deference to any prior resolution of the same controversy. Thus, in Renegotiation Board v. BannercraftSearch
-
And in United States v. FirstSearch
-
Congress' prime objective in 1976 was to overrule this Court's decision in Wingo v. WeddingSearch
-
In Renegotiation Board v. BannercraftSearch
-
In United States v. FirstSearch
-
held that critical issues of credibility can be resolved only by personally hearing live testimony. See, e.g., Weahkee v. PerrySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial