Citation network
Brogan Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 02, 1997
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
-
Brogan v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 522 U.S. 398 (1997) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Brogan V. UnitedSearch
-
and that simple denials of guilt do not do so. United States v. GillilandSearch
-
the Fifth Amendment is rejected because the Fifth Amendment does not confer a privilege to lie. E. g., United States v. ApfelbaumSearch
-
central feature of this doctrine is that a simple denial of guilt does not come within the statute. See, e. g., Moser v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. TaylorSearch
-
United States v. Equihua-JuarezSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. CogdellSearch
-
United States v. TaborSearch
-
United States v. FitzgibbonSearch
-
United States v. ChevoorSearch
-
see Paternostro v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 311 F.2d 298 (CA5 1962)) in categorically rejecting the doctrine, see United States v. Rodriguez-RiosSearch
-
Petitioner derives this premise from a comment we made in United States v. GillilandSearch
-
United States v. AbramsSearch
-
Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. TrainSearch
-
first appeared in Justice Goldberg's opinion for the Court in Mur phy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
United States v. Ap-Search
-
felbaum, 445 U. S. 115 , 117 (1980). See also United States v. WongSearch
-
Bryson v. UnitedSearch
-
if he takes the stand-does not exert a form of pressure that exonerates an otherwise unlawful lie. See United States v. KnoxSearch
-
in which the Court did not purport to be departing from a reasonable reading of the text, United States v. X-CitementSearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
others, the Court applied what it thought to be a background interpretive principle of general application. Staples v. UnitedSearch
-
Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
does not propose, and its author has not practiced, consistent application of the principle, see, e. g., Hubbard v. UnitedSearch
-
Chapman v. UnitedSearch
-
though, for all we can tell, Brogan's unadorned denial misled no one. A further illustration. In United States v. TaborSearch
-
may apply to encounters between agents and their targets 2 See, e. g., United States v. StoffeySearch
-
United States v. DempseySearch
-
see also United States v. GoldfineSearch
-
United States v. EhrlichmanSearch
-
elicit a fresh denial of guilt.3 Prosecution in these circumstances is not an instance of Gov- 3 Cf. United States v. BushSearch
-
be subverted even though the Government would not be deprived of any property or money. See generally United States v. GillilandSearch
-
amended the statute in 1934 to include the language that formed the basis for Brogan's prosecution. See Hubbard v. UnitedSearch
-
to aid the enforcement of laws relating to the functions of the Department of the Interior.''') (quoting United States v. GillilandSearch
-
Paternostro v. UnitedSearch
-
accord, United States v. StarkSearch
-
Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
Memorandum for United States in Nunley v. UnitedSearch
-
conviction and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment, at the Solicitor General's suggestion. Nunley v. UnitedSearch
-
basis, not for the imposition of criminal liability, but for an adverse employment action. For that reason, Lachance v. EricksonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial