Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

James Vs. Illinois

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 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

44 entries 9 linked 35 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Havens US Supreme Court · May 27, 1980
  2. Terry Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  3. Arizona Vs. Hicks US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1987
  4. Brooks Vs. Tennessee US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1972
  5. United States Vs. Leon US Supreme Court · Jul 05, 1984
  6. Stone Vs. Powell US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  7. United States Vs. Calandra US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1974
  8. Oregon Vs. Hass US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1975
    Relied / Followed
  9. imbler Vs. Pachtman US Supreme Court · Nov 03, 1975
  10. U.S. 307 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court James v. Illinois
    Search
  11. U.S. 307 (1990) James v. Illinois
    Search
  12. U. S. 1 , 392 U. S. 12 (1968), quoting Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  13. Harris v. New
    Search
  14. of impeaching the credibility of the defendant's own testimony. This Court first recognized this exception in Walder v. United
    Search
  15. Id. at 347 U. S. 65 . In Harns v. New
    Search
  16. York, supra, and Oregon v. Hass
    Search
  17. Finally, in United States v. Havens
    Search
  18. Elkins v. United
    Search
  19. Illinois v. Krull
    Search
  20. becoming parties to the constitutional violation by admitting illegally obtained evidence at trial. See United States v. Leon
    Search
  21. See Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  22. Oregon v. Hass
    Search
  23. Walder v. United
    Search
  24. Chambers v. Mississippi
    Search
  25. from impeaching own witness after witness offered incriminating testimony violated due process). See also Imbler v. Pachtman
    Search
  26. decide whether there is a salient distinction between direct and cross-examination in this context, cf. United States v. Havens
    Search
  27. other important values outweighs any deterrence of unlawful conduct that the rule might achieve. See, e.g., Illinois v. Krull
    Search
  28. would be excluded. The principle applies to suppressed physical evidence, as in Walder itself and United States v. Havens
    Search
  29. and to statements obtained in violation of the law, so long as the statements are voluntary and reliable, see Oregon v. Hass
    Search
  30. Ante at 493 U. S. 312 , n. 1 (quoting Illinois v. Krull
    Search
  31. ante at 493 U. S. 320 -321 (opinion of STEVENS, J.), is not realistic. See generally Dunn v. United
    Search
  32. proof requirement applies in Illinois and other States, making perjury convictions difficult to sustain. See People v. Alkire
    Search
  33. People v. Harrod
    Search
  34. possibility insufficient to justify immunity for a defendant's own false testimony on cross-examination. United States v. Havens
    Search
  35. U.S. Supreme Court James v. Illinois
    Search
  36. Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  37. In Harns v. New
    Search
  38. and Oregon v. Hass
    Search
  39. Illinois v. Krull
    Search
  40. See United States v. Leon
    Search
  41. and United States v. Havens
    Search
  42. Dunn v. United
    Search
  43. See People v. Alkire
    Search
  44. Chambers v. Mississippi
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial