Citation network
Mckune Vs. Lile
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 28, 2001
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. 24 (2001) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Mckune, Warden, Et Al. V. LileSearch
-
the need to grant necessary authority and capacity to officials to administer the prisons. See, e. g., Turner v. SafleySearch
-
U. S. 78 . The Court's holding in Sandin v. ConnerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
constitute atypical and significant hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Cf., e. g., Baxter v. PalmigianoSearch
-
for other inmates. The decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators' expertise. See Meachum v. FanoSearch
-
Constitution accords prison officials wide latitude to bestow or revoke these perquisites as they see fit. See Hewitt v. HelmsSearch
-
program amounts to unconstitutional compulsion. Instead, he relies on the so-called penalty cases, see, e. g., Spevack v. KleinSearch
-
that make his life in prison more tolerable-is much less than that borne by the defendant in, e. g., McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
penalty to be used against him as evidence of his guilt. The hard choices faced by the defendants in, e. g., Baxter v. PalmigianoSearch
-
and Minnesota v. MurphySearch
-
of one's livelihood through, e. g., the loss of employment, Uni formed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc. v. CommissionerSearch
-
U. S. 280 , and the loss of the right to participate in political associations and to hold public office, Lefkowitz v. CunninghamSearch
-
crime. The police arrested respondent and recovered on his person the weapon he used to facilitate the crime. State v. LileSearch
-
States conduct similar sex offender programs and do not offer immunity to the participants. See, e. g., Ainsworth v. RisleySearch
-
the State of Kansas offered immunity, the self-incrimination privilege would not be implicated. See, e. g., Kastigar v. UnitedSearch
-
Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause, which applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
United States v. WashingtonSearch
-
of a valid conviction and the ensuing restrictions on liberty are essential to the Fifth Amendment analysis. Sandin v. ConnerSearch
-
a legitimate penological interest that must be weighed against the exercise of an inmate's liberty. See, e. g., O'Lone v. EstateSearch
-
Brady v. UnitedSearch
-
necessary authority and capacity to federal and state officials to administer the prisons. See, e. g., Turner v. SafleySearch
-
necessarily place limitations on the exercise of a defendant's privilege against selfincrimination. See, e. g., Baxter v. PalmigianoSearch
-
U. S. 308 (1976). Baxter declined to extend to prison disciplinary proceedings the rule of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
well settled that the decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators' expertise. See Meachum v. FanoSearch
-
accords prison officials wide latitude to bestow or revoke these perquisites as they see fit. Accordingly, Hewitt v. HelmsSearch
-
so-called penalty cases, respondent treats the fact of his incarceration as if it were irrelevant. See, e. g., Garrity v. NewSearch
-
that the government need not make the exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege cost free. See, e. g., Jenkins v. AndersonSearch
-
Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
feel considerable pressure to admit guilt in order to obtain more lenient treatment. See, e. g., Bordenkircher v. HayesSearch
-
wage and taking away personal television and gym access pose the same hard choice faced by the defendants in Baxter v. PalmigianoSearch
-
U. S. 308 (1976), Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. WoodardSearch
-
U. S. 272 (1998), and Minnesota v. MurphySearch
-
fact that his silence at a prison disciplinary hearing would be held against him. The Court acknowledged that Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
adopted for evaluating due process claims in prisons, see post, at 58-60 (dissenting opinion) (citing Meachum v. FanoSearch
-
incriminating statements. For instance, in Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
But we have not required Miranda warnings during noncustodial police questioning. See, e. g., Beckwith v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial