Citation network
Withrow Vs. Williams
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 21, 1993
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. 680 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Withrow V. WilliamsSearch
-
a double murder, respondent Williams made inculpatory statements. He was then advised of his rights under Mi randa v. ArizonaSearch
-
The Court of Appeals agreed on both points and affirmed, summarily rejecting the argument that the rule in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
but was based on prudential concerns counseling against applying the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule of Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
General, Donald E. De Nicola, 682 JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court. In Stone v. PowellSearch
-
prisoner's claim that his conviction rests on statements obtained in violation of the safeguards mandated by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
After consulting each other, the officers decided not to advise Williams of his rights under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
life sentences. The Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed the trial court's ruling on the April 10 statements, People v. WilliamsSearch
-
to appeal, 432 Mich. 913, 440 N. W. 2d 416 (1989). We denied the ensuing petition for writ of certiorari. Williams v. MichiganSearch
-
involuntary. Id., at 289-290. The Court of Appeals summarily rejected the argument that the rule in Stone v. PowSearch
-
those statements as well. App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a-75a. 2JU8TICE SCALIA argues in effect that the rule in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
see also Kuhlmann v. WilsonSearch
-
Stone, supra, at 489-495. We recognized that the exclusionary rule, held applicable to the States in Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Stone, supra, at 486 (quoting Linkletter v. WalkerSearch
-
Id., at 491, n. 31 (quoting Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
Over the years, we have repeatedly declined to extend the rule in Stone beyond its original bounds. In Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
on habeas imposed no great burdens on the federal courts. Id., at 321-322. After a like analysis, in Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
likely raise tensions between the state and federal judicial systems. Ibid. In a third instance, in Kimmelman v. MorrisonSearch
-
U. S. Const., Arndt. 5. In Bram v. UnitedSearch
-
interrogation. We did not recognize the Clause's applicability to state cases until 1964, however, see Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
and, over the course of 30 years, beginning with the decision in Brown v. MississippiSearch
-
We have in the past declined to address the application of Stone in this context. See, e. g., Duckworth v. EaganSearch
-
U. S. 503 , 513 (1963) (quoting Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
when addressing a claim that the introduction of an involuntary confession has violated due process. E. g., Arizona v. FulminanteSearch
-
cf. Oregon v. HassSearch
-
in nature. E. g., Duckworth v. EaganSearch
-
see Michigan v. TuckerSearch
-
Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
supra, at 448, n. 23 (quoting Escobedo v. IllinoisSearch
-
Johnson v. NewSearch
-
Halpern, Federal Habeas Corpus and the Mapp Exclusionary Rule after Stone v. PowellSearch
-
cf. Rose v. MitchellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial