Citation network
New York Vs. Hill
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 02, 1999
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. 110 (1999) October Term, 1999 Syllabus New York V. HillSearch
-
within that period. This Court has articulated a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver, United States v. MezzanattoSearch
-
and has recognized that the most basic rights of criminal defendants are subject to waiver, Peretz v. UnitedSearch
-
cl. 3, the lAD is a federal law subject to federal construction. Carchman v. NashSearch
-
in which the prisoner is housed hold the prisoner for the agency or notify the agency when release is imminent. Fex v. MichiganSearch
-
articulated a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver, United States v. MezzanattoSearch
-
Peretz v. UnitedSearch
-
a given delay under the lAD, although they have disagreed on what is necessary to effect a waiver. See, e. g., People v. JonesSearch
-
Brown v. WolffSearch
-
Drescher v. SuperiorSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
For certain fundamental rights, the defendant must personally make an informed waiver. See, e. g., Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
Link v. WabashSearch
-
R. Co., 370 U. S. 626 , 634 (1962) (quoting Smith v. AyerSearch
-
Thus, decisions by counsel are generally given effect as to what arguments to pursue, see Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
U. S. 745 , 751 (1983), what evidentiary objections to raise, see Henry v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 443 , 451 (1965), and what agreements to conclude regarding the admission of evidence, see United States v. McGillSearch
-
is not appropriate when it is inconsistent with the provision creating the right sought to be secured. E. g., Crosby v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
Gannett Co. v. DePasqualeSearch
-
constitutional protections for criminal defendants that also serve broader social interests. See, e. g., Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
Delay can lead to a less accurate outcome as witnesses become unavailable and memories fade. See, e. g., Sibron v. NewSearch
-
preventing further criminal activity (or avoiding the costs of pretrial detention) are simply not at issue. Cf. Barker v. WingoSearch
-
a)(I), (2), United States v. TaylorSearch
-
Syllabus New York V. HillSearch
-
Carchman v. NashSearch
-
Fex v. MichiganSearch
-
People v. JonesSearch
-
Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Smith v. AyerSearch
-
Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
United States v. McGillSearch
-
Crosby v. UnitedSearch
-
Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
Sibron v. NewSearch
-
Cf. Barker v. WingoSearch
-
United States v. TaylorSearch
-
Henry v. MississippiSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial