Citation network
Morris Vs. Slappy
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 20, 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. 1 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. SlappySearch
-
U.S. 1 (1983) Morris v. SlappySearch
-
his client or otherwise to prepare for trial violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
violates the right to the assistance of counsel. Unar v. SarafiteSearch
-
Ibid. See Ungar v. SarafiteSearch
-
repeatedly the central role of the defendant's right to counsel in our criminal justice system. See, e.g., Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
Geders v. UnitedSearch
-
Herring v. NewSearch
-
Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
supra, at 407 U. S. 31 . In Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
a defendant has Page 461 U. S. 21 an interest in his relationship with his attorney. As we noted in Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
between a defendant and his attorney, attorney-client communications generally are privileged. See Upjohn Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
so that an attorney retained by the defendant could represent him at trial. Page 461 U. S. 22 In Releford v. UnitedSearch
-
the defendant had been deprived of the assistance of counsel of his own choice. Id. at 301-302. In Gandy v. AlabamaSearch
-
Id. at 1327. See also Linton v. PeriniSearch
-
United States v. SealeSearch
-
Lee v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 274, 235 F.2d 219, 221 (1956). Cf. United States v. BurtonSearch
-
Giacalone v. LucasSearch
-
or less deserving of protection, than those of wealthy defendants. As was stated in a different context in Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
In Smith v. SuperiorSearch
-
Ibid. As a result, the court found that this case was analogous to cases such as Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
U. S. 475 (1978), Geders v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 425 U. S. 80 (1976), Herring v. NewSearch
-
York, 422 U. S. 853 (1975), Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
U. S. 335 (1963), Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, and Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
reasoning persuasive. The same conclusion has been reached in other cases in similar contexts. See, e.g., Linton v. PeriniSearch
-
Releford v. UnitedSearch
-
Harling v. UnitedSearch
-
means that there is no record on which to base judgments regarding prejudice. We recognized this problem in Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
Id. at 4.29 (commentary). In Linton v. PeriniSearch
-
Id. at 212. Similarly, in Lee v. UnitedSearch
-
It is arguable that cases like Releford v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 288 F.2d 298 (CA9 1961), and Gandy v. AlabamaSearch
-
Harling v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. SlappySearch
-
See Chambers v. MaroneySearch
-
Unar v. SarafiteSearch
-
Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
In Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Upjohn Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
In Releford v. UnitedSearch
-
In Gandy v. AlabamaSearch
-
Linton v. PeriniSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial