Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Hubbell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 05, 2000

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

65 entries 3 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Doe US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1984
  2. United States Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
  3. Counselman Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1892
  4. U.S. 27 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus United States V. Hubbell
    Search
  5. within the meaning of the privilege. See Fisher v. United
    Search
  6. it provides is coextensive with the scope of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Kastigar v. United
    Search
  7. the documents was the fruit only of the simple physical act of production. In addition, the Government misreads Fisher v. United
    Search
  8. States, 425 U. S., at 411, and ignores United States v. Doe
    Search
  9. him to answer questions designed to uncover uncharged offenses, without evidence from another source. See Andresen v. Maryland
    Search
  10. Doe v. United
    Search
  11. sworn communication by a witness that relates either express or implied assertions of fact or belief. Penn sylvania v. Muniz
    Search
  12. Holt v. United
    Search
  13. States, 218 U. S. 245 , 252-253 (1910). 10 Ibid. 11 Schmerber v. California
    Search
  14. U. S. 757 (1966). 12 Gilbert v. California
    Search
  15. U. S. 263 (1967). 13 United States v. Wade
    Search
  16. U. S. 218 (1967). 14 United States v. Sullivan
    Search
  17. U. S. 259 (1927). 15 Shapiro v. United
    Search
  18. States, 335 U. S. 1 (1948). 16 California v. Byers
    Search
  19. Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight
    Search
  20. U. S. 549 , 556 (1990). 36 within the meaning of the privilege. Our decision in Fisher v. United
    Search
  21. see also United States v. Doe
    Search
  22. the witness would admit that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic. United States v. Doe
    Search
  23. id., at 428, 432 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United
    Search
  24. Hoffman v. United
    Search
  25. is privileged even if the information itself is not inculpatory. Doe v. United
    Search
  26. App. 60-61. In Kastigar v. United
    Search
  27. from the 1868 statute that had been held invalid in Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  28. Id., at 454 (quoting Ull mann v. United
    Search
  29. Kastigar v. United
    Search
  30. in identifying the hundreds of documents responsive to the requests in the subpoena. See Curcio v. United
    Search
  31. under our decision in Fisher v. United
    Search
  32. U. S., at 411. This argument both misreads Fisher and ignores our subsequent decision in United States v. Doe
    Search
  33. at the time of the founding a person who turned over documents would be described as providing testimony. See Amey v. Long
    Search
  34. supra, at 1618-1623. Several 18th-century cases explicitly recognized such a self-incrimination privilege. See Roe v. Harvey
    Search
  35. King v. Purnell
    Search
  36. King v. Cornelius
    Search
  37. Queen v. Mead
    Search
  38. King v. Worsenham
    Search
  39. Boyd v. United
    Search
  40. States, 116 U. S. 616 , 631 (1886). See also Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  41. were not simply descriptions of the act of providing testimony. For example, in King v. Purnell
    Search
  42. in response to a government request. Id., at 40, 41, 42, 96 Eng. Rep., at 21, 22, 23. See also, e. g., King v. Cornelius
    Search
  43. to interpret the Compulsory Process Clause while presiding over the treason trial of Aaron Burr. United States v. Burr
    Search
  44. at 34-35. This Court has subsequently expressed agreement with this view of the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Nixon
    Search
  45. approach to the Fifth Amendment that we follow today. The first case interpreting the Self-Incrimination Clause-Boyd v. United
    Search
  46. in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. See White v. Illinois
    Search
  47. law understanding of the self-incrimination privilege. Id., at 631-632. But this Court's decision in Fisher v. United
    Search
  48. Syllabus United States V. Hubbell
    Search
  49. See Fisher v. United
    Search
  50. Fisher v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial