Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Butler Vs. Mckellar

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 05, 1990

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

70 entries 11 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Teague Vs. Lane US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1989
  2. Miranda Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1966
  3. Reed Vs. Ross US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1984
  4. Rose Vs. Mitchell US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1979
  5. Ross Vs. Moffitt US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1974
  6. Penry Vs. Lynaugh US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1989
  7. Palko Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1937
  8. Solem Vs. Stumes US Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1984
  9. Fay Vs. Noia US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  10. United States Vs. Leon US Supreme Court · Jul 05, 1984
  11. Watt Vs. Alaska US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1981
  12. U.S. 407 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Butler v. McKellar
    Search
  13. U.S. 407 (1990) Butler v. McKellar
    Search
  14. relief, which was dismissed by the District Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting his argument that Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  15. questioning once an accused invokes his right to counsel on any offense. Subsequently, this Court handed down Arizona v. Roberson
    Search
  16. time the defendant's conviction became final, and is therefore inapplicable to cases on collateral review under Teague v. Lane
    Search
  17. U. S. 288 , and Penry v. Lynaugh
    Search
  18. attacked his conviction by way of a petition for federal habeas corpus. Butler relied on our decision in Arizona v. Roberson
    Search
  19. unless the decision was dictated by precedent existing at the time the petitioner's conviction became final. Penry v. Lynaugh
    Search
  20. for the first time that he was a suspect in Lane's murder. After receiving Miranda warnings, see Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  21. the commission of a rape. The Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld Butler's conviction on direct appeal, State v. Butler
    Search
  22. Subsequently, Butler unsuccessfully petitioned for collateral relief in the State's courts, see Butler v. State
    Search
  23. motion for summary judgment. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, see Butler v. Aiken
    Search
  24. F.2d 255 (1988), Page 494 U. S. 411 Butler argued that Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  25. to counsel on any offense. In support of his argument, Butler relied principally on United States ex rel. Espinoza v. Fairman
    Search
  26. by our subsequent decision in Roberson, Butler v. Aiken
    Search
  27. s petition for a rehearing en banc. We granted certiorari, 490 U.S. 1045, and now affirm. Last Term, in Penry v. Lynaugh
    Search
  28. U.S. at 492 U. S. 313 (citing Teague v. Lane
    Search
  29. to Page 494 U. S. 414 then-existing constitutional standards. Furthermore, as we recognized in Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  30. proceeding, new constitutional commands.' . . . See also Brown v. Allen
    Search
  31. precedents made by state courts even though they are shown to be contrary to later decisions. Cf. United States v. Leon
    Search
  32. U.S. at 401 U. S. 693 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Palko v. Connecticut
    Search
  33. with whom Justice BLACKMUN and Justice STEVENS join as to Parts I, II, and III, dissenting. Last Term in Teague v. Lane
    Search
  34. Id. at 489 U. S. 306 (quoting Mackey v. United
    Search
  35. Desist v. United
    Search
  36. rejections of constitutional challenges is made manifest by the Court's conclusion that our recent holding in Arizona v. Roberson
    Search
  37. U. S. 436 , 384 U. S. 475 (1966). In Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  38. United States v. Johnson
    Search
  39. emphasis added) (quoting Solem v. Stumes
    Search
  40. Kaufman v. United
    Search
  41. liberty interests through a fresh and full review of their claims by an Article III court. As we recognized in Fay v. Noia
    Search
  42. Brown v. Allen
    Search
  43. death sentence. I adhere to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment. Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  44. could reach different results about the application of Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  45. U. S. 477 (1981), to the fact pattern in Arizona v. Roberson
    Search
  46. See Saffle v. Parks
    Search
  47. the deterrent function of the exclusionary rule, see ante at 494 U. S. 414 (referencing United States v. Leon
    Search
  48. Compare Desist v. United
    Search
  49. narrow federal constitutional protections in order to advance the State's interest in law enforcement. See, e.g., Reed v. Ross
    Search
  50. Cf. Brown v. Allen
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial