Citation network
Vasquez Vs. Hillery
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 14, 1986
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 254 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Vasquez v. HillerySearch
-
U.S. 254 (1986) Vasquez v. HillerySearch
-
Court concluded that respondent had established discrimination in the grand jury, and granted the writ. See Hillery v. PulleySearch
-
a meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of legal error without interference from the federal judiciary. Rose v. LundySearch
-
Humphrey v. CadySearch
-
to clarify the relevant facts, an endeavor wholly consistent with Rule 7 and the purpose of the writ. See Townsend v. SainSearch
-
that the total absence of blacks from the grand jury in the history of Kings County was an undisputed fact. People v. HillerySearch
-
U.S. 938 (1967). That fact was entitled, therefore, to a presumption of correctness on federal review. Sumner v. MataSearch
-
Hillery v. PulleySearch
-
Hill v. TexasSearch
-
in order to assess the role of chance in the exclusion of Mexican-Americans from a grand jury in Texas. Castaneda v. PartidaSearch
-
Townsend v. SainSearch
-
Strauder v. WestSearch
-
that a conviction may stand despite racial discrimination in the selection of the grand jury. See, e.g., Neal v. DelawareSearch
-
Rogers v. AlabamaSearch
-
Smith v. TexasSearch
-
Arnold v. NorthSearch
-
Alexander v. LouisianaSearch
-
line of case law should be reconsidered in favor of a harmless error standard, and determined that it should not. Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
United States v. CiambroneSearch
-
judgment, his actual motivations are hidden from review, and we must presume that the process was impaired. See Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
we have required reversal of the conviction because the effect of the violation cannot be ascertained. See Davis v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Equal Protection Clause if the prosecutor deliberately charged the defendant on account of his race, see United States v. BatchelderSearch
-
and it was denied because the District Court found that no prejudicial delay had been caused by respondent. Hillery v. SumnerSearch
-
We should not lightly create a new judicial rule, in the guise of constitutional interpretation, to achieve the same end. v. Today'sSearch
-
Burnet v. CoronadoSearch
-
Court discuss in detail the evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as other aspects of the case. See Hillery v. PulleySearch
-
Hillery v. PulleySearch
-
Hillery v. SumnerSearch
-
See People v. HillerySearch
-
People v. HillerySearch
-
at 443 U. S. 588 (WHITE, J., joined by STEVENS, J., dissenting). The dissent here offers a citation to Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
As we pointed out in Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
which, in theory, allows redress for blacks who have been excluded from grand jury service. See Carter v. JurySearch
-
obtained through a fair trial is necessary in order to eradicate and deter such discrimination. Not until Rose v. MitchellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial