Citation network
United States Vs. Robinson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 24, 1988
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. 25 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
U.S. 25 (1988) United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
inference from a defendant's silence, or to treat the defendant's silence as substantive evidence of guilt, Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
F.2d 1095, 1096, 1097 (1983) (citing Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 609 (1965), and Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
certiorari, vacated that judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. YoungSearch
-
we conclude that there was no constitutional error at all, we do not reach the plain error issue. In Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
between the sort of comments involved in Griffin and the comments involved in this case. In Baxter v. PalmigianoSearch
-
Lakeside v. OregonSearch
-
comment must be examined in context is illustrated by our treatment of a Fifth Amendment claim in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
United States v. YoungSearch
-
purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence, United States v. NoblesSearch
-
Delaware v. VanSearch
-
See Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
See Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
see also United States v. HastingSearch
-
In United States v. YoungSearch
-
and Darden v. WainwrightSearch
-
I agree with JUSTICE MARSHALL when he concludes that the prosecutor's comments constituted error under Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
analysis, as I read it, may be attributable to confusion generated by this Court's recent opinion in United States v. YoungSearch
-
U. S. 157 , 297 U. S. 159 -160 (1936). See also United States v. FradySearch
-
it generally has avoided articulating a strict formula for other courts to follow in applying the doctrine. Cf. Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
standard for prejudice used to determine whether properly preserved constitutional errors are harmless. See Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Accounting for the constitutional magnitude of the error is, of course, appropriate. See Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. YoungSearch
-
applied by some Courts of Appeals in assessing whether nonconstitutional errors are harmless, see, e.g., United States v. DavisSearch
-
F.2d 637, 640 (CA4 1981) (citing Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
or to the standard alluded to in JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent in United States v. YoungSearch
-
But however slight the impact of today's decision, the Court's faithlessness to the bright-line rules of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 609 (1965), and Wilson Page 485 U. S. 38 v. UnitedSearch
-
which we construed in Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
Burt v. NewSearch
-
U.S. at 149 U. S. 65 . See also Lakeside v. OregonSearch
-
defendant's failure to testify occasions a reversal of an ensuing conviction. This Court recognized as much in Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
barred his client from testifying at trial. But this Court set out the framework for that evaluation in United States v. YoungSearch
-
impediment to the jury's truthfinding function that the Court finds irksome is a matter of precious design. See Mackey v. UnitedSearch
-
citing Tehan v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HastingSearch
-
Mackey v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. JacksonSearch
-
F.2d 1095, 1096 (1983). That statement varies only subtly, if at all, from the bald references condemned in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and Wilson v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial