Citation network
United States Vs. Henry
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 16, 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. 264 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. HenrySearch
-
U.S. 264 (1980) United States v. HenrySearch
-
of Appeals reversed, holding that the Government's actions impaired respondent's Sixth Amendment rights under Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
holding that the actions of the Government impaired the Sixth Amendment rights of the defendant under Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
of the prosecution at which the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel attaches. See, e.g., United States v. AshSearch
-
the Sixth Amendment to postindictment communications between the accused and agents of the Government in Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
absent waiver, would certainly satisfy Massiah, we are not persuaded, as the Government contends, that Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
test. See Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
from persons not in custody but suspected of criminal activity prior to the time charges are filed. In Hoffa v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WhiteSearch
-
Government agents before charges are filed, because of the absence of the potential for compulsion. See Hoffa v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
apply in the context of communications with an undisclosed undercover informant acting for the Government. See Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
As a ground Page 447 U. S. 274 for imposing the prophylactic requirements in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
People v. DeForeSearch
-
that the Government failed to disclose Brady material, see Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
but was not willing to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Nichols' testimony did not influence the jury. Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of leading the conversation into any particular subject or prompting any particular replies. See, e.g., United States v. HearstSearch
-
case is whether the Government deliberately elicited information from respondent in violation of the rule of Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964), and Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
opinion of the Court, but write separately to state my understanding of the Court's holding. I In Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
equipment and instructed the informant to engage the defendant in conversation relating to the crimes. United States v. MassiahSearch
-
U.S. at 377 U. S. 206 , quoting 307 F.2d at 72 (Hays, J., dissenting). Similarly, in Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
not violated when a passive listening device collects, but does not induce, incriminating comments. See United States v. HearstSearch
-
in conduct that, considering all of the circumstances, is the functional equivalent of interrogation. See Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
id. at 430 U. S. 411 , 430 U. S. 412 (POWELL, J., concurring). See also Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
whom MR. JUSTICE WHITE joins, dissenting. In this case, the Court, I fear, cuts loose from the moorings of Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
A. Authority. The Court's precedents appear to me to be contrary to this new objective approach. Spano v. NewSearch
-
a turncoat codefendant. The agent instructed the latter to talk to the defendant about the crime, see United States v. MassiahSearch
-
about the subjective nature of the Massiah inquiry, it was dispelled by Page 447 U. S. 280 Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
Id. at 430 U. S. 399 (emphasis added). See also Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
Kamisar, Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
as exclusion of indisputably reliable evidence in criminal trials cannot be denied. See, e.g., Bivens v. SixSearch
-
Third, I find it significant that the proffered statements are unquestionably voluntary. See United States v. WashingtonSearch
-
Fourth, the Court condemns and punishes police conduct that I do not find culpable. See Wilson v. HendersonSearch
-
Hoffa v. UnitedSearch
-
Ante at 447 U. S. 273 . One might properly assign this factor some importance, were it not for Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
Page 447 U. S. 285 Lanza v. NewSearch
-
incentives to assist authorities, one may expect a detainee to act with corresponding circumspection. Cf. Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
has no precedent, we are not without some assistance in judging its application. Just a few weeks ago, in Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
For purposes of this case, I see no need to abandon Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
back to government agents. See Wilson v. HendersonSearch
-
Rejection of an objective test in this context is not inconsistent with Rhode Island v. InnisSearch
-
Michigan v. PayneSearch
-
occurs. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
likely to frustrate the purpose of having counsel, and most susceptible to being checked by a deterrent. Cf. Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. HenrySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial