Citation network
United States Vs. Hasting
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 23, 1983
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. 499 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. HastingSearch
-
U.S. 499 (1983) United States v. HastingSearch
-
and remanded for retrial, concluding that the summation violated respondents' Fifth Amendment rights under Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
some caution and with a view toward balancing the interests involved. Pp. 461 U. S. 505 -507. (b) Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
errors were alleged, including a claim that the prosecutor violated respondents' Fifth Amendment rights under Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
reversed the convictions and remanded for retrial, 660 F.2d 301 (CA7 1980), citing its decision in United States v. BuegeSearch
-
claiming that the prosecutor's remark was equivocal, nonprejudicial, and that the court failed to apply Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
The court pointedly emphasized its own decision in United States v. RodriguezSearch
-
Rodriguez court discussed, without explicitly adopting, the rule announced by the First Circuit in United States v. FlannerySearch
-
McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
and finally, as a remedy designed to deter illegal conduct, United States v. PaynerSearch
-
Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
past, or the practical problems of retrying these sensitive issues more than four years after the events. See Morris v. SlappySearch
-
failure to provide evidence on matters that only he could have been expected to deny or explain. In reliance on Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
the accused to testify violated the Fifth Amendment. Soon after Griffin, however, this Court decided Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
free, perfect trial, and that the Constitution Page 461 U. S. 509 does not guarantee such a trial. Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 411 U. S. 223 , 411 U. S. 231 -232 (1973), citing Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
the issue whether the Fifth Amendment violation it perceived to exist was harmless error within the measure of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
which is discussed in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
statute is the current codification of the Act of March 16, 1878, 20 Stat. 30, ch. 37, which was construed in Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
at 149 U. S. 65 , in order to effectuate the congressional policy underlying the statute. See also Bruno v. UnitedSearch
-
The Court also could have publicly chastised the prosecutor by identifying him in its opinion. See also United States v. ModicaSearch
-
U.S. at 386 U. S. 23 , citing Payne v. ArkansasSearch
-
Under its plain meaning, this statute would not have reached a constitutional violation, see Bruno v. UnitedSearch
-
Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. DavisSearch
-
F.2d 928, 933 (CA7 1971). Under Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
or Wilson v. PageSearch
-
test -- more stringent than the test that is constitutionally permissible in state court proceedings under Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
As we wrote in Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
not expressly presented by the petition, we occasionally depart from this rule of practice. See, e.g., Procunier v. NavaretteSearch
-
Washington v. DavisSearch
-
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
of the facts. Id. at 301-303. In its brief legal analysis, the court relied on its decision in United States v. BuegeSearch
-
improper prosecutorial comment on a defendant's failure to testify. Such a rule was rejected by this Court in Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
a conviction. In Chapman, the Court addressed the question of whether a violation of the rule of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
In Connecticut v. JohnsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial