Citation network
Roberts Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 15, 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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 445 U.S. 552 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 445 U.S. 552 (1980) Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
though it was known that petitioner's intransigency would be used against him. Although the requirement of Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
questions. Although petitioner was present voluntarily, the investigators gave him the warnings required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
on the ground that the terms of the plea agreement were inadequately disclosed to the District Court. United States v. RobertsSearch
-
Williams v. NewSearch
-
United States v. GraysonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id. at 438 U. S. 50 , quoting United States v. TuckerSearch
-
U. S. 443 , 404 U. S. 446 (1972). See also Pennsylvania v. AsheSearch
-
Townsend v. BurkeSearch
-
supra at 438 U. S. 51 , quoting United States v. HendrixSearch
-
are likely to be incriminating, the privilege may not be relied upon unless it is invoked in a timely fashion. Garner v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MandujanoSearch
-
In this case, as in Vajtauer v. CommissionerSearch
-
otherwise might be unable Page 445 U. S. 561 to make a free and informed choice to remain silent. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Garner v. UnitedSearch
-
Garner v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra at 424 U. S. 657 , quoting Lisenba v. CaliforniaSearch
-
post-arrest silence that may be induced by the assurances contained in Miranda warnings. Cf. Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
we would sanction an unwarranted interference with a function traditionally vested in the trial courts. See Dorszynski v. UnitedSearch
-
See Branzburg v. HayesSearch
-
The Court recognized in Garner v. UnitedSearch
-
Hoffman v. UnitedSearch
-
Mason v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. VermeulenSearch
-
It is the duty of a court to determine the legitimacy of a witness' reliance upon the Fifth Amendment. Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
In United States v. WashingtonSearch
-
may not stand upon a Fifth Amendment privilege that he never invoked at the time of his silence. See United States v. MandujanoSearch
-
Vajtauer v. CommissionerSearch
-
of due process, an offender may not be sentenced on the basis of mistaken facts or unfounded assumptions. Townsend v. BurkeSearch
-
danger of erroneous inference and provide a record to support sentencing against subsequent challenge. Cf. McCarthy v. UnitedSearch
-
standard. United States v. MandujanoSearch
-
a longer sentence of imprisonment would plainly be compulsion within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Cf. McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
at 445 U. S. 558 , and bears no relation to any of the legitimate purposes of sentencing. See United States v. GraysonSearch
-
power between the prosecutor and the defendant prevents the process from being fundamentally unfair. Santobello v. NewSearch
-
whether failure to cooperate could be considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Compare United States v. GarciaSearch
-
F.2d 681, 684-686 (CA3 1976) (improper factor), and United States v. RogersSearch
-
F.2d 1079 (CA5 1974) (same), with United Slates v. Chaidez-CastroSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
of Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
the District Court. United States v. RobertsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial