Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Johnson Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 15, 1943

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

37 entries 37 unlinked
Show
  1. Johnson v. United
    Search
  2. States - 318 U.S. 189 (1943) U.S. Supreme Court Johnson v. United
    Search
  3. States, 318 U.S. 189 (1943) Johnson v. United
    Search
  4. The case of an accused who voluntarily takes the stand and the case of an accused who refrains from testifying ( Bruno v. United
    Search
  5. States, 308 U. S. 287 ) are, of course, vastly different. Raffel v. United
    Search
  6. Fitzpatrick v. United
    Search
  7. Powers v. United
    Search
  8. not run afoul of the rule which prohibits inquiry into a collateral crime unconnected with the offense charged. Boyd v. United
    Search
  9. line of inquiry therefore satisfied the test of relevancy, and was a proper part of cross-examination. See Cravens v. United
    Search
  10. Mehan v. United
    Search
  11. Weiss v. United
    Search
  12. Bullock v. State
    Search
  13. numbers income in 1938 could properly be the subject of comment and inference. As stated by this Court in Caminetti v. United
    Search
  14. of privilege could not properly be denied. The rule which obtains when the accused fails to take the stand ( Wilson v. United
    Search
  15. Phelin v. Kenderdine
    Search
  16. Wireman v. Commonwealth
    Search
  17. Ky. 57, 62, 63, 261 S.W. 862. And see State v. Vroman
    Search
  18. Carne v. Litchfield
    Search
  19. People v. McGungill
    Search
  20. We are mindful of the fact that there is eminent authority which may be said to represent the contrary view. State v. Ober
    Search
  21. See United States v. Atkinson
    Search
  22. Clyatt v. United
    Search
  23. here with inadvertence or oversight. This is a case where silent approval of the course followed by the court ( Boyd v. United
    Search
  24. the claim of privilege was treated. In such a situation, the rule stated by Mr. Justice Sutherland in United States v. Manton
    Search
  25. United States v. Manton
    Search
  26. of the cross-examination on his 1938 income deprived him of his right to be present during the trial. Cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts
    Search
  27. U.S. Supreme Court Johnson v. United
    Search
  28. Bruno v. United
    Search
  29. Raffel v. United
    Search
  30. Fitzpatrick v. United
    Search
  31. Boyd v. United
    Search
  32. See Cravens v. United
    Search
  33. Caminetti v. United
    Search
  34. Wilson v. United
    Search
  35. State v. Vroman
    Search
  36. State v. Ober
    Search
  37. Cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial