Citation network
Hobby Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 02, 1984
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
-
Hobby v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 468 U.S. 339 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Hobby v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 468 U.S. 339 (1984) Hobby v. UnitedSearch
-
where a white male is challenging on due process grounds the selection of the foreman of a federal grand jury. Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
indictments and reversals of convictions. Page 468 U. S. 342 The Court of Appeals recognized that, in Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
of grand jury foremen requires the reversal of his conviction and dismissal of the indictment against him. In Peters v. KiffSearch
-
of the foreman's signature is a mere technical irregularity that is not necessarily fatal to the indictment. Frisbie v. UnitedSearch
-
petitioner's conviction or dismiss the indictment. B Petitioner argues that the Court's decision in Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
for the vindication of such claims in the context of challenges to grand and petit juries. See, e.g., Castaneda v. PartidaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Strauder v. WestSearch
-
Rose Page 468 U. S. 348 v. MitchellSearch
-
of the grand jury. . . . The absence of the foreman's endorsement makes an indictment 'fatally defective.' Bird v. StateSearch
-
strictly clerical tasks and whose signature on an indictment is a mere formality. Page 468 U. S. 349 Frisbie v. UnitedSearch
-
McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 318 U. S. 332 , 318 U. S. 340 (1943). See United States v. HastingSearch
-
Compare United States v. AimoneSearch
-
United States v. ColettaSearch
-
selection insufficient to imply due process violation), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1202 (1983), with United States v. CrossSearch
-
United States v. Perez-HernandezSearch
-
defendant failed to establish such discrimination). See also United States v. CronnSearch
-
also in terms of the injury done to public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process. For example, in Peters v. KiffSearch
-
Id. at 407 U. S. 502 -503. This theme was reaffirmed in Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
the judicial process will be impugned in the mind of the public. The majority observes that, in contrast to Peters v. KiffSearch
-
at 468 U. S. 345 . To justify this conclusion, the Court first attempts to distinguish this case from Peters v. KiffSearch
-
in the federal judicial scheme. Another factor the majority focuses upon as a way of distinguishing Peters v. KiffSearch
-
United States v. CrossSearch
-
who have testified under oath as to the qualities they look for in selecting a grand jury foreman. See United States v. BrelandSearch
-
United States v. ManbeckSearch
-
United States v. NorthsideSearch
-
United States v. HolmanSearch
-
United States v. JenisonSearch
-
supra, at 636 (summarizing testimony adduced in United States v. HolmanSearch
-
supra, and United States v. JenisonSearch
-
the harm caused by racist and sexist practices in the administration of criminal justice. We recognized in Peters v. KiffSearch
-
regrettable since the Court engaged in a comprehensive explication of an appropriate balancing analysis in Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
Cf. Ballard v. UnitedSearch
-
Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
will serve as foreman importantly differentiates that person from the other members of the venire. See United States v. CrossSearch
-
For example, in United States v. BrelandSearch
-
For example, in United States v. HolmanSearch
-
F.Supp. at 1180. Similarly, in United States v. JenisonSearch
-
the basis of applicable law, should not be stymied on the basis of meaningless formalities. See, e.g., United States v. VentrescaSearch
-
See Marbury v. MadisonSearch
-
In Ballard v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial