Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Crews

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 25, 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

53 entries 7 linked 46 unlinked
Show
  1. Frisbie Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1952
  2. Ker Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1886
  3. Beck Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1964
  4. United States Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
  5. Neil Vs. Biggers US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1972
  6. GersteIn Vs. Pugh US Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1975
  7. Stone Vs. Powell US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  8. U.S. 463 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Crews
    Search
  9. U.S. 463 (1980) United States v. Crews
    Search
  10. obtained, it does not reach backward to taint information that was in official hands prior to any illegality. Davis v. Mississippi
    Search
  11. doctrine. See Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  12. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United
    Search
  13. U.S. at 371 U. S. 484 . See Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United
    Search
  14. Weeks v. United
    Search
  15. of the poisonous tree, Harrison v. United
    Search
  16. more, has never been viewed as a bar to subsequent prosecution, nor as a defense to a valid conviction. Gerstein v. Pugh
    Search
  17. that was in official hands prior to any illegality. Accordingly, this case is very different from one like Davis v. Mississippi
    Search
  18. focused on respondent, and the police had independent reasonable grounds to suspect his culpability. We find Bynum v. United
    Search
  19. already in the FBI's possession was not tainted by the subsequent illegality, and was therefore admissible. Bynum v. United
    Search
  20. Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  21. See Nardone v. United
    Search
  22. Owens v. Twomey
    Search
  23. E.g., Whiteley v. Warden
    Search
  24. Sibron v. New
    Search
  25. E.g., United States v. Giordano
    Search
  26. Silverman v. United
    Search
  27. McGinnis v. United
    Search
  28. E.g., Dunaway v. New
    Search
  29. Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  30. test. Id. at 388 U. S. 241 . Cf. Manson v. Brathwaite
    Search
  31. test of United States v. Wade
    Search
  32. supra, and Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  33. Cf. United States v. Blue
    Search
  34. Cf. Stevenson v. Mathews
    Search
  35. WHITE s view, post at 445 U. S. 477 -478, that this claim is foreclosed by the rationale of Frisbie v. Collins
    Search
  36. U. S. 519 (1952), and Ker v. Illinois
    Search
  37. Page 445 U. S. 478 illegal arrest. Because I consider this question to be controlled by the rationale of Frisbie v. Collins
    Search
  38. s presence at trial was obtained is irrelevant to the admissibility of the in-court identification. We held in Frisbie v. Collins
    Search
  39. holding would be inconsistent with the underlying rationale of Frisbie, from which we have not retreated. Stone v. Powell
    Search
  40. crime X was without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. I agree that this case is very different from Davis v. Mississippi
    Search
  41. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Crews
    Search
  42. Davis v. Mississippi
    Search
  43. See Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  44. See Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United
    Search
  45. Harrison v. United
    Search
  46. Bynum v. United
    Search
  47. Owens v. Twomey
    Search
  48. Silverman v. United
    Search
  49. Cf. Manson v. Brathwaite
    Search
  50. of United States v. Wade
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial