Citation network
Cicenia Vs. Lagay
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 30, 1958
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
-
U.S. 504 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court Cicenia v. LagaySearch
-
U.S. 504 (1958) Cicenia v. LagaySearch
-
his counsel while being questioned by the state police did not, of itself, violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Crooker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
illegally obtained. The County Court denied the motion. The Superior Court of New Jersey dismissed the appeal, State v. CiceniaSearch
-
vult to the indictment. In New Jersey, such a plea is subject to discretionary acceptance by the trial court, State v. MartinSearch
-
The contention that petitioner had a constitutional right to confer with counsel is disposed of by Crooker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
We share the strong distaste expressed by the two lower courts over the episode disclosed by this record. Cf. Stroble v. CaliforniaSearch
-
what occurred under our general supervisory power over the administration of justice in the federal courts. See McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
is quite another matter. The difficulties inherent in the problem require no extensive elaboration. Cf. Watts v. IndianaSearch
-
in any broad pronouncement that one must yield to the other in all instances. Instead, as we point out in Crooker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
in determining from all the circumstances whether a conviction was attended by fundamental unfairness. See House v. MayoSearch
-
counsel. Even in federal prosecutions, this Court has refrained from laying down any such inflexible rule. See McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
Mallory v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Hoag v. NewSearch
-
Jersey, 356 U. S. 464 , 356 U. S. 468 . See Maxwell v. DowSearch
-
Twining v. NewSearch
-
does not reach so far. As stated by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in the earlier proceedings in this case, State v. CiceniaSearch
-
to allow inspection before trial. This is consistent with the practice in many other jurisdictions. See, e.g., State v. HaasSearch
-
People v. SkoyecSearch
-
State v. ClarkSearch
-
Wash.2d 774, 153 P.2d 297. In Leland v. OregonSearch
-
ground that, under New Jersey law, petitioner had no constitutional right to counsel prior to arraignment. See State v. GrilloSearch
-
claims on the merits, the two lower federal courts decided that they had the power to consider them. Cf. Brown v. AllenSearch
-
the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision denying leave to appeal was based on that nonfederal ground. Cf. Stembridge v. GeorgiaSearch
-
against him, he having pleaded non vult to the indictment. But cf. Herman v. ClaudySearch
-
rule that an accused has no right to consult with counsel during the period between arrest and arraignment. See State v. RogersSearch
-
Utah v. SullivanSearch
-
People v. KellySearch
-
criminal proceedings against the citizen. I would reverse the judgment for the reasons stated in my dissent in Crooker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cicenia v. LagaySearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. Crooker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
State v. CiceniaSearch
-
State v. MartinSearch
-
Crooker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cf. Stroble v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Watts v. IndianaSearch
-
See House v. MayoSearch
-
See Maxwell v. DowSearch
-
State v. HaasSearch
-
In Leland v. OregonSearch
-
See State v. GrilloSearch
-
Cf. Brown v. AllenSearch
-
Cf. Stembridge v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Herman v. ClaudySearch
-
See State v. RogersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial