Citation network
Jenkins Vs. Anderson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 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. 231 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Jenkins v. AndersonSearch
-
U.S. 231 (1980) Jenkins v. AndersonSearch
-
decision to cast aside his cloak of silence and advances the truthfinding function of the criminal trial. Cf. Raffel v. UnitedSearch
-
Harris v. NewSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
is probative. In this case, in which no governmental action induced petitioner to remain silent before arrest, Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
trial, and prevents the prosecution from commenting on the silence of a defendant who asserts the right. Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
proceedings. Instead, he voluntarily took the witness stand in his own defense. This Court's decision in Raffel v. UnitedSearch
-
Grunewald v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 17 , 412 U. S. 30 (1973). See Corbitt v. NewSearch
-
supra, at 412 U. S. 32 , quoting Crampton v. OhioSearch
-
decided with McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
This Court similarly defined the scope of the Fifth Amendment protection in Harris v. NewSearch
-
York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). There, the Court held that a statement taken in violation of Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. at 401 U. S. 225 . See also Oregon v. HassSearch
-
Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
impermissibly, it also is appropriate to consider the legitimacy of the challenged governmental practice. See Chaffin v. StynchcombeSearch
-
is not probative of a defendant's credibility and where prejudice to the defendant might result. See United States v. HaleSearch
-
Stewart v. UnitedSearch
-
Only in Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
impeachment by silence violated the Constitution. In that case, a defendant received the warnings required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Id. at 426 U. S. 619 , quoting United States v. HaleSearch
-
raise his constitutional claims during his state court trial. Thus, the respondent argues that the rule of Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
Court of Appeals. Ordinarily, we will not consider a claim that was not presented to the courts below. See Dorszynski v. UnitedSearch
-
test may turn on an interpretation of state law. See Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
In Crampton v. OhioSearch
-
cross-examination on matters reasonably related to the subject matter of his direct examination. See, e.g., Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
Fitzpatrick v. UnitedSearch
-
who takes the stand in his own behalf may be impeached by proof of prior convictions or the like. See Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
Michelson v. UnitedSearch
-
Luck v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. PalumboSearch
-
the Fifth Amendment is not violated when a defendant is impeached on the basis of his prior silence. In United States v. HaleSearch
-
n. 4 (1975), the Court expressly declined to consider the constitutional question. The decision in Stewart v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1961), was based on federal evidentiary grounds, not on the Fifth Amendment. The Court in Grunewald v. UnitedSearch
-
criminal proceeding the relevance of such silence, of course, would be a matter of federal law. See United States v. HaleSearch
-
that introduction of the evidence in this trial violated due process relies upon the Court's reasoning in Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 610 (1976), and United States v. HaleSearch
-
The Court reached a similar result in Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
supra at 426 U. S. 618 , n. 9. See also Raley v. OhioSearch
-
compulsion to speak. I would reject his due process claim for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
for the purpose of impeachment. As the Court correctly points out, this holding is squarely supported by Raffel v. UnitedSearch
-
II For the reasons stated in Part I of my dissenting opinion in Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. at 620-626, I do not agree with the Court's view that the warnings required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Jenkins v. AndersonSearch
-
Cf. Raffel v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial