Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Nix Vs. Williams

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 11, 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

71 entries 7 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Crews US Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1980
  2. Schneckloth Vs. Bustamonte US Supreme Court · May 29, 1973
  3. United States Vs. Ash US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1973
  4. Brewer Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1977
  5. Weatherford Vs. Bursey US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1977
  6. United States Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
    Relied / Followed
  7. Stone Vs. Powell US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  8. U.S. 431 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Nix v. Williams
    Search
  9. U.S. 431 (1984) Nix v. Williams
    Search
  10. s incriminating statements through interrogation in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Brewer v. Williams
    Search
  11. the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court. State v. Williams
    Search
  12. of Iowa. That court concluded that the evidence in question had been wrongly admitted at Williams' trial, Williams v. Brewer
    Search
  13. statements from Williams by what was viewed as interrogation in violation of his right to counsel. Brewer v. Williams
    Search
  14. of unlawful governmental conduct had its genesis in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United
    Search
  15. Ibid. (emphasis added). Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  16. violation. The Court has applied the doctrine where the violations were of the Sixth Amendment, see United States v. Wade
    Search
  17. See Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  18. Kastigar v. United
    Search
  19. if ever, be in a position to calculate whether the evidence sought would inevitably be discovered. Cf. United States v. Ceccolini
    Search
  20. lessen the likelihood that the ultimate or inevitable discovery exception will promote police misconduct. See Bivens v. Six
    Search
  21. adversary process in which the reliability of proffered evidence may be tested in cross-examination. See United States v. Ash
    Search
  22. People v. Defore
    Search
  23. of the means by which it was found. Id. at 23-24, 150 N.E. at 588. Cardozo's prophecy was fulfilled in Killough v. United
    Search
  24. directed some 200 volunteers who were searching for the child's body. Tr. of Hearings on Motion to Suppress in State v. Williams
    Search
  25. review of factual as well as legal determinations in cases raising constitutional challenges. See, e.g., Amelto v. Baughman
    Search
  26. State v. Ege
    Search
  27. the Eighth Circuit in a case decided after the instant case, has endorsed the inevitable discovery doctrine. See Wayne v. United
    Search
  28. United States v. Bienvenue
    Search
  29. Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau
    Search
  30. United States v. Seohnlein
    Search
  31. United States v. Brookins
    Search
  32. Papp v. Jago
    Search
  33. Owens v. Twomey
    Search
  34. United States v. Apker
    Search
  35. United States v. Schmidt
    Search
  36. United States v. Romero
    Search
  37. United States v. Roper
    Search
  38. In Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  39. concurring). Application of the independent source doctrine in the Fifth Amendment context was reaffirmed in Kastigar v. United
    Search
  40. discovery exception to the exclusionary rule is closely related in purpose to the harmless error rule of Chapman v. California
    Search
  41. As to the quantum of proof, we have already established some relevant guidelines. In United States v. Matlock
    Search
  42. In Lego v. Twomey
    Search
  43. argues that the preponderance of the evidence standard used by the Iowa courts is inconsistent with United States v. Wade
    Search
  44. under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, we find it unnecessary to decide whether Stone v. Powell
    Search
  45. only to point out that many of Justice Stevens' remarks are beside the point when it is recalled that Brewer v. Williams
    Search
  46. To anyone not lost in the intricacies of the prophylactic Page 467 U. S. 451 rules of Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  47. adversarial process protected by the Sixth Amendment may not be undermined by the strategems of the police. Spano v. New
    Search
  48. Douglas, J., concurring, joined by Black and BRENNAN, JJ.). This view ripened into a holding in Massiah v. United
    Search
  49. ante at 467 U. S. 447 (quoting People v. Defore
    Search
  50. result of his conduct, this defendant received the type of trial that the Sixth Amendment envisions. See United States v. Morrison
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial