Citation network
United States Vs. Cotton
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 20, 2002
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. 625 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus United States V. CottonSearch
-
based on a quantity not alleged in the indictment. While their appeal was pending, this Court decided, in Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Custis v. UnitedSearch
-
Steel Co. v. CitizensSearch
-
Syllabus indictment defects do not deprive a court of its power to adjudicate a case. See, e. g., Lamar v. UnitedSearch
-
Stirone v. UnitedSearch
-
Russell v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Yakus v. UnitedSearch
-
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. In Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
at 490. In federal prosecutions, such facts must also be charged in the indictment. Id., at 476 (quoting Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
respondents' appeal was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, we decided Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
obtain direct review of his criminal conviction in the Su- 630 preme Court.1 See generally United States v. SangesSearch
-
see also Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
correction regardless of whether the error was raised in district court. See, e. g., Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. MottleySearch
-
Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
Bain cases confirm that defects in an indictment do not deprive a court of its power to adjudicate a case. In Lamar v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 65. Similarly, United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
Bain has been cited in later cases such as Stirone v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 361 U. S. 212 (1960), and Russell v. UnitedSearch
-
the plain-error test of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) to respondents' forfeited claim. See United States v. OlanoSearch
-
substantial rights.''' Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Olano, supra, at 735. Respondents cite Silber v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 370 U. S. 717 (1962) (per curiam), and Stirone v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus United States V. CottonSearch
-
Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Lamar v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Court. In Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. MottleySearch
-
In Lamar v. UnitedSearch
-
Similarly, United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
and Russell v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. OlanoSearch
-
Silber v. UnitedSearch
-
and Stirone v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial