Citation network
Miller Vs. Fenton
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 03, 1985
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. 104 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Miller v. FentonSearch
-
U.S. 104 (1985) Miller v. FentonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s guarantee of due process. App. 53. Over three dissents, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed again. State v. MillerSearch
-
s importance to the administration of criminal justice, we granted certiorari. 471 U.S. 1003 (1985). Compare Brantley v. McKaskleSearch
-
Alexander v. SmithSearch
-
system of justice that they must be condemned under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. MississippiSearch
-
Court has set aside convictions secured through the admission of an improperly obtained confession. See, e.g., Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
-
Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination applies in the context of custodial interrogations, Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 436 , 384 U. S. 478 (1966), and is binding on the States, Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
the Court has continued to measure confessions against the requirements of due process. See, e.g., Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
-
is a legal question requiring independent federal determination. See, e.g., Haynes v. WashingtonSearch
-
circumstances of the case, the confession is unlikely to have been the product of a free and rational will. See Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
-
is no less firmly established in cases coming to the federal system on application for a writ of habeas corpus. Davis v. NorthSearch
-
review of state voluntariness findings. That suggestion finds no support in this Court's decisions. See, e.g., Boulden v. HolmanSearch
-
of that provision. The 1966 amendment was an almost verbatim codification of the standards delineated in Townsend v. SainSearch
-
U. S. 306 , or whether in fact the police engaged in the intimidation tactics alleged by the defendant, LaVallee v. DelleSearch
-
habeas court, should, of course, give great weight to the considered conclusions of a coequal state judiciary. Culombe v. ConnecticutSearch
-
d) presumption of correctness. See Wainwright v. WittSearch
-
for distinguishing questions of fact from questions of law has been, to say the least, elusive. See Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
Baumgartner v. UnitedSearch
-
an inquiry into state of mind is not at all inconsistent with treating it as a question of fact. See, e.g., Maggio v. FulfordSearch
-
merely because its resolution is dispositive of the ultimate constitutional question. See Dayton Board of Education v. BrinkmanSearch
-
force and, in so doing, strip a federal appellate court of its primary function as an expositor of law. See Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
Id. at 466 U. S. 518 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting). See, e.g., Haynes v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 49 , 338 U. S. 52 (1949) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.). Cf. Norris v. AlabamaSearch
-
the process of applying law to fact to the trial court and according its determinations presumptive weight. Patton v. YountSearch
-
supra, and Wainwright v. WittSearch
-
Moragne v. StatesSearch
-
d) after Townsend v. SainSearch
-
independent federal determination. Thus, not only are stare decisis concerns compelling, but, unlike in Marshall v. LonbergerSearch
-
U. S. 422 (1983), Rushen v. SpainSearch
-
has consistently looked to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to test admissibility. See, e.g., Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
-
not be secured by inquisitorial means as on whether the defendant's will was, in fact, overborne. See, e.g., Gallegos v. ColoradoSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Miller v. FentonSearch
-
State v. MillerSearch
-
Compare Brantley v. McKaskleSearch
-
Alexander v. SmithSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial