Citation network
Smith Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 06, 1954
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
-
Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 348 U.S. 147 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 348 U.S. 147 (1954) Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
to evade his income taxes for 1946 through 1949. In addition to the net worth method of proof considered in Holland v. UnitedSearch
-
and a Government agent that the case would be closed and the petitioner granted immunity. See Ziang Sung Wan v. UnitedSearch
-
Bram v. UnitedSearch
-
Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
Sparf and Hansen v. UnitedSearch
-
offered petitioner or his accountant. Petitioner cannot complain that he was denied a voir dire, cf. United States v. CarignanSearch
-
may not be convicted on his own uncorroborated confession has previously been recognized by this Court, Warszower v. UnitedSearch
-
Isaacs v. UnitedSearch
-
Miles v. UnitedSearch
-
in the lower federal courts and Page 348 U. S. 153 in the overwhelming majority of state courts, Forte v. UnitedSearch
-
Warszower v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
or induced, and although separate doctrines exclude involuntary confessions from consideration by the jury, Bram v. UnitedSearch
-
according the accused even greater protection than the rule affords to a defendant in a homicide prosecution, Evans v. UnitedSearch
-
Murray v. UnitedSearch
-
corroborative evidence must implicate the accused in order to show that a crime has been committed. See, e.g., Tabor v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. KertessSearch
-
Ercoli v. UnitedSearch
-
Pines v. UnitedSearch
-
Forte v. UnitedSearch
-
Tingle v. UnitedSearch
-
Wynkoop v. UnitedSearch
-
Daeche v. UnitedSearch
-
in the lower court opinions as to whether the corroboration requirement applies to mere admissions, see United States v. KertessSearch
-
Page 348 U. S. 155 States, supra, 131 F.2d at 356. But see Warszower v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Gulotta v. UnitedSearch
-
to distinguish between admissions before and after the fact as required by the Warszower case. Accord, Duncan v. UnitedSearch
-
Gordnier v. UnitedSearch
-
the prosecution period did not account for the alleged net worth increases, the Government could not succeed. Holland v. UnitedSearch
-
has been committed, and the evidence as a whole proves beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty. Gregg v. UnitedSearch
-
Jordan v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra. But cf. United States v. FenwickSearch
-
whether corroboration is necessary for all elements of the offense established by admissions alone, compare Ercoli v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, and Pines v. UnitedSearch
-
Wynkoop v. UnitedSearch
-
and Pearlman v. UnitedSearch
-
merely fortifies the truth of the confession, without independently establishing the crime charged, compare Pearlman v. UnitedSearch
-
and Daeche v. UnitedSearch
-
Pines v. UnitedSearch
-
and Forte v. UnitedSearch
-
the statements of the accused. Cf. Parker v. StateSearch
-
circumstances, providing grounds for a strong inference of reliability, may not have to be corroborated. Cf. Miles v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. SaltzmanSearch
-
then relies on its existence to sustain the defendant's conviction, there is need for corroboration. Cf. United States v. KertessSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
Holland v. UnitedSearch
-
See Ziang Sung Wan v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial