Citation network
Carter Vs. Kentucky
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 09, 1981
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. 288 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Carter v. KentuckySearch
-
U.S. 288 (1981) Carter v. KentuckySearch
-
of his constitutional privilege not to testify is severe when there is an adverse comment on his silence, Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the defendant's failure to testify, the court cited its previous decision in Green v. CommonwealthSearch
-
question presented by this case is one the Court has specifically anticipated and reserved, first in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 609 , 380 U. S. 615 , n. 6, and more recently in Lakeside v. OregonSearch
-
But, as a question of federal statutory law, it was resolved by a unanimous Court over 40 years ago in Bruno v. UnitedSearch
-
is applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
Page 450 U. S. 298 id. at 380 U. S. 614 , quoting Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
The Court returned to a consideration of the Fifth Amendment and jury instructions in Lakeside v. OregonSearch
-
Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
Ullman v. UnitedSearch
-
Green v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Taylor v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 478 , 436 U. S. 484 , from the instruction requested. See United States v. BainSearch
-
United States v. EnglishSearch
-
any constitutional error committed by the state courts was harmless. Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to reach the issue, because it was not presented to or considered by the Supreme Court of Kentucky. See Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and made applicable to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth. Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
further guarantees that no adverse inferences are to be drawn from the exercise of that privilege. Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
The per curiam memorandum opinion of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, Carter v. CommonwealthSearch
-
is one of at least five States that prohibit giving such an instruction to the jury. Others are Minnesota, see State v. SandveSearch
-
Minn. 229, 232-234, 156 N.W.2d 230, 233-234, but see State v. GreySearch
-
Nevada, see Jackson v. StateSearch
-
Oklahoma, see Brannin v. StateSearch
-
P.2d 276, 279-280 (Crim.App.), Hanf v. StateSearch
-
and Wyoming, see Kinney v. StateSearch
-
by judicial pronouncement, require that a defense request for such a jury instruction be honored. See, e.g., Woodward v. StateSearch
-
Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
The Malloy case overruled Twining v. NewSearch
-
Jersey, 211 U. S. 78 , and Adamson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Tehan v. UnitedSearch
-
In Tehan v. UnitedSearch
-
In Taylor v. KentuckySearch
-
Starr v. UnitedSearch
-
The question in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
should testify on his own behalf -- should be answered by the defendant and his lawyer, not by the State. See Lakeside v. OregonSearch
-
U. S. 609 , 380 U. S. 615 , n. 6 (1965), and more recently in Lakeside v. OregonSearch
-
in the first place, the case of Bruno v. UnitedSearch
-
and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment in Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
against himself inconsistently with the provisions of the Fifth Amendment. The claim is, rather, that, in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Carter v. KentuckySearch
-
Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Bruno v. UnitedSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
See United States v. BainSearch
-
the Supreme Court of Kentucky. See Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
the Fourteenth. Malloy v. HoganSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial