Citation network
Mitchell Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 05, 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
-
Mitchell v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 526 U.S. 314 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Mitchell V. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to which the witness testifies, and the waiver's scope is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination. Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
on accusations proved by the Government, not on inquisitions conducted to enhance its own prosecutorial power. Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
Court has already rejected the proposition that incrimination is complete once guilt has been adjudicated. See Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
only to cases in which the sentence has been fixed and the judgment of conviction has become final. See, e. g., Reina v. UnitedSearch
-
The normal rule in a criminal case permits no negative inference from a defendant's failure to testify. See Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
id., at 190 (citing United States v. GarciaSearch
-
confronted the issue have held that a defendant retains the privilege at sentencing. See, e. g., United States v. KukuSearch
-
Bank One of Cleveland, N. A. v. AbbeSearch
-
United States v. LuggSearch
-
United States v. ParisSearch
-
about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about the details. See Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
to cases in which the sentence has been fixed and the judgment of conviction has become final. See, e. g., Reina v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 462 (emphasis in original) (quoting Culombe v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Mempa v. RhaySearch
-
rule in a criminal case is that no negative inference from the defendant's failure to testify is permitted. Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Id., at 316, 319. Cf. Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. WoodardSearch
-
vital importance. Our holding today is a product of existing precedent, not only Griffin but also by Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
Ullmann v. UnitedSearch
-
that it would do him less damage than his own cross-examined testimony. Despite the text, we held in Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
imposed on the defendant's exercise of the privilege. Ibid. And we did not stop there, holding in Carter v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 308 , 319 (1976) (quoting United States v. HaleSearch
-
U. S. 171 , 176 (1975)). See also United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. TodSearch
-
prevented a criminal defendant from testifying in his own behalf even if he wanted to do so. See generally Ferguson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
does not apply at sentencing. Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
for example, reports of probation officers and psychiatrists without affording any cross-examination.) See Williams v. NewSearch
-
of the Due Process Clause that the prosecution prove the essential facts beyond a reasonable doubt. McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
our holding in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
be drawn from silence where the consequence is a 338 denial of clemency, see Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. WoodardSearch
-
U. S. 272 , 285-286 (1998), the imposition of punishment for violation of prison rules, see Baxter v. PalmigianoSearch
-
U. S., at 318-319, and even deportation, see INS v. Lopez-MendozaSearch
-
U. S. 1032 , 1043-1044 (1984) (citing United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. TodSearch
-
rule to be absolute. One year after Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 609 (1965), we did say in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
But we have also held that the Fifth Amendment permits a defendant to be impeached with his prearrest silence, Jenkins v. AndersonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial