Citation network
Kansas Vs. Ventris
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 29, 2009
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2008 Kansas V. VentrisSearch
-
is violated by introducing a coerced confession at trial, whether by way of impeachment or otherwise. New Jersey v. PortashSearch
-
violation of the substantive guarantee, admissibility is determined by an exclusionary-rule balancing test. See Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment prophylactic rules forbidding certain pretrial police conduct. See, e.g., Harris v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
In every other context, this Court has held that tainted evidence is admissible for impeachment. See, e.g., Oregon v. HassSearch
-
Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Kansas v. VentrisSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Kansas V. VentrisSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-1356 Kansas, Petitioner V. DonnieSearch
-
interactions between the defendant and the State, United States v. WadeSearch
-
deliberate elicitation by law enforcement officers (and their agents) of statements pertaining to the charge, Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
s case in chief. Without affirming that this concession was necessary, see Kuhlmann v. WilsonSearch
-
whenever a truly coerced confession is introduced at trial, whether by way of impeachment or otherwise. New Jersey v. PortashSearch
-
has not been automatic, therefore, but we have instead applied an exclusionary-rule balancing test. See Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment prophylactic rules forbidding certain pretrial police conduct. See Harris v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 648 , 656 (1984). See also Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
Massiah, supra, at 204 (quoting Spano v. NewSearch
-
York , 360 U. S. 315 , 326 (1959) (Douglas, J., concurring)). See also Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Patterson v. IllinoisSearch
-
can trump the costs of allowing perjurious statements to go unchallenged. Oregon v. HassSearch
-
instruction on the unreliability of rewarded informant testimony by acquitting Ventris of felony murder. Kansas v. VentrisSearch
-
Stevens, J., Dissenting Kansas V. VentrisSearch
-
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting. In Michigan v. HarveySearch
-
at 355. In this case, the State has conceded that it violated the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
and we have long recognized that the right applies in periods before trial commences, see United States v. WadeSearch
-
see Maine v. MoultonSearch
-
the fairness of which the Sixth Amendment was designed to protect. See Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
see also Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
Harvey , 494 U. S., at 357 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. CronicSearch
-
that such shabby tactics are intolerable in all cases. I respectfully dissent. Footnote 1 See Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
counsel jurisprudence is built on a more realistic understanding of what the Constitution guarantees. See Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
See Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
Harris v. NewSearch
-
Kansas, Petitioner V. DonnieSearch
-
and the State, United States v. WadeSearch
-
Kuhlmann v. WilsonSearch
-
See Harris v. NewSearch
-
Spano v. NewSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial