Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Carter Vs. Illinois

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 09, 1946

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

50 entries 6 linked 44 unlinked
Show
  1. House Vs. Mayo US Supreme Court · Feb 05, 1945
  2. Williams Vs. Kaiser US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1945
  3. Rice Vs. Olson US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1945
  4. Mooney Vs. Holohan US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1935
  5. Mckane Vs. Durston US Supreme Court · May 14, 1894
  6. Woods Vs. Nierstheimer US Supreme Court · May 20, 1946
  7. U.S. 173 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Carter v. Illinois
    Search
  8. U.S. 173 (1946) Carter v. Illinois
    Search
  9. review in this Court is confined, there is no showing of a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rice v. Olson
    Search
  10. the importance of the claim, if valid, we brought the case here. 328 U.S. 827. In a series of cases of which Moore v. Dempsey
    Search
  11. U. S. 86 , was the first, and Ashcraft v. Tennessee
    Search
  12. under all circumstances, Page 329 U. S. 175 counsel be forced upon a defendant. United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams
    Search
  13. open an inquiry into the intrinsic fairness of a criminal process even though it appears proper on the surface. Mooney v. Holohan
    Search
  14. to book, so long as they observe those ultimate dignities of man which the United States Constitution assures. Brown v. New
    Search
  15. Missouri v. Lewis
    Search
  16. cases. A State may decide whether to have direct appeals in such cases, and, if so, under what circumstances. McKane v. Durston
    Search
  17. U. S. 684 , 153 U. S. 687 . In respecting the duty laid upon them by Mooney v. Holohan
    Search
  18. brought either in the court of original conviction or at the place of detention. See, e.g., New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson
    Search
  19. Matter of Lyons v. Goldstein
    Search
  20. Matter of Morhous v. New
    Search
  21. People v. Gersewitz
    Search
  22. Matter of Hogan v. Court
    Search
  23. on the basis of the scope of the remedy provided and what the court properly had before it in such a proceeding. Woods v. Nierstheimer
    Search
  24. that led to it he was denied the assistance of counsel. This case is quite different from a case like Rice v. Olson
    Search
  25. not a case in which intelligent waiver of counsel is a tenuous inference from the mere fact of a plea of guilty. Rice v. Olson
    Search
  26. no wise implies that the defendant was not capable of intelligent self-protection when he pleaded guilty. Cf. Canizio v. New
    Search
  27. in a proceeding in the State courts appropriate to that purpose, or, if none is available, in a federal court. Woods v. Nierstheimer
    Search
  28. his oath, his inability to procure counsel, and expresses a desire to have the court appoint one for him. ( People v. Braner
    Search
  29. People v. Corrie
    Search
  30. People v. Childers
    Search
  31. have an attorney appointed for him, this assignment of error cannot Page 329 U. S. 181 be sustained. People v. Stubblefield
    Search
  32. People v. Stack
    Search
  33. People v. Braner
    Search
  34. of making his own defense, it is the duty of the court to appoint counsel, whether requested so to do or not. Williams v. Kaiser
    Search
  35. petitioner committed a crime, we cannot know the degree of prejudice which the denial of counsel caused. See Glasser v. United
    Search
  36. question may be untangled from the question arising under the federal constitution. See State Tax Commission v. Van
    Search
  37. it is a gross miscarriage of justice to condemn a man to death or to life imprisonment in such a manner. See Powell v. Alabama
    Search
  38. was provided, afforded no opportunity for undoing the effect of the unaided arraignment or plea of guilty. Cf. Canizio v. New
    Search
  39. U.S. Supreme Court Carter v. Illinois
    Search
  40. the Fourteenth Amendment. Rice v. Olson
    Search
  41. Moore v. Dempsey
    Search
  42. and Ashcraft v. Tennessee
    Search
  43. McCann v. Adams
    Search
  44. Brown v. New
    Search
  45. Whitman v. Wilson
    Search
  46. Cf. Canizio v. New
    Search
  47. People v. Stubblefield
    Search
  48. See Glasser v. United
    Search
  49. See State Tax Commission v. Van
    Search
  50. See Powell v. Alabama
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial