Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Canizio Vs. New York

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 04, 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

39 entries 3 linked 36 unlinked
Show
  1. Williams Vs. Kaiser US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1945
  2. Betts Vs. Brady US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1942
  3. Rice Vs. Olson US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1945
  4. Canizio v. New
    Search
  5. York - 327 U.S. 82 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Canizio v. New
    Search
  6. York, 327 U.S. 82 (1946) Canizio v. New
    Search
  7. petitioner's motion Page 327 U. S. 85 was the proper procedure to raise the Federal question. Lyons v. Goldstein
    Search
  8. N.L.R. 1422. Since the Court's denial of the motion cannot be appealed to any higher New York Court, People v. Gersewitz
    Search
  9. N.Y. 163, 61 N.E.2d 427, we have jurisdiction to consider the case. Betts v. Brady
    Search
  10. he was sentenced, his charges would have been such as to have required the Court to hold a hearing on his motion. Rice v. Olson
    Search
  11. People v. Gowasky
    Search
  12. first degree robbery while armed, he would in all likelihood have gotten a higher sentence. Cf. People ex rel. O'Berst v. Murphy
    Search
  13. Pilo v. Martin
    Search
  14. People v. Joyce
    Search
  15. reached us, our previous decisions would have compelled us to hold the denial of the motion improper. See e.g., Rice v. Olson
    Search
  16. It is suggested that the New York case of People v. Steinmetz
    Search
  17. of his right. We have held that, in a federal court, a withdrawn guilty plea is not admissible in evidence. Kercheval v. United
    Search
  18. States, 274 U. S. 220 , 274 U. S. 223 , 274 U. S. 225 . See also People v. Ariano
    Search
  19. proceeding. Especially is this true of the ignorant, the indigent, the illiterate and the immature defendant. Powell v. Alabama
    Search
  20. the entire proceeding, an effect which may not be erasable on the day of imposing the sentence. As was said in Glasser v. United
    Search
  21. were thereby vitiated, from which it follows that the conviction was inconsistent with due process of law. See Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  22. Waley v. Johnston
    Search
  23. Under New York law, a plea of guilty which is withdrawn may subsequently be admitted in evidence at the trial. People v. Steinmetz
    Search
  24. under that law, a withdrawn plea of guilty is admissible in evidence against the accused at his later trial. People v. Steinmetz
    Search
  25. have heretofore expressed my reasons for thinking that such a procedure involves a species of self-incrimination. Wood v. United
    Search
  26. held on nonconstitutional grounds that, in a federal court, a withdrawn plea of guilty is not admissible. Kercheval v. United
    Search
  27. U.S. Supreme Court Canizio v. New
    Search
  28. Lyons v. Goldstein
    Search
  29. New York Court, People v. Gersewitz
    Search
  30. O'Berst v. Murphy
    Search
  31. Pilo v. Martin
    Search
  32. of People v. Steinmetz
    Search
  33. Kercheval v. United
    Search
  34. People v. Ariano
    Search
  35. Powell v. Alabama
    Search
  36. Glasser v. United
    Search
  37. See Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  38. People v. Steinmetz
    Search
  39. Wood v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial