Citation network
Spano Vs. New York
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 22, 1959
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
-
Spano v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
York - 360 U.S. 315 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Spano v NewSearch
-
York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959) Spano v NewSearch
-
which we must make, we cannot escape the responsibility of making our own examination of the record. Norris v. AlabamaSearch
-
U.S. 919. Petitioner's first contention is that his absolute right to counsel in a capital case, Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
in the absence of counsel can be used without violating the Fourteenth Amendment. He seeks to distinguish Crooker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 433 , and Cicenia v. LagaySearch
-
suspected of crime. The facts of no case recently in this Court have quite approached the brutal beatings in Brown v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 278 (1936), or the 36 consecutive hours of questioning present in Ashcraft v. TennesseeSearch
-
father, harried by his superiors, in not one, but four different acts, the final one lasting an hour. Cf. Leyra v. DennoSearch
-
therefore merely trying to solve a crime, or even to absolve a suspect. Compare Page 360 U. S. 324 Crooker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
supra, and Cicenia v. LagaySearch
-
examined with the most careful scrutiny, and has reversed a conviction on facts less compelling than these. Malinski v. NewSearch
-
since there is sufficient other evidence in the record from which the jury might have found guilt, relying on Stein v. NewSearch
-
York, 346 U. S. 156 . But Payne v. ArkansasSearch
-
E.g., Cicenia v. LagaySearch
-
Thomas v. ArizonaSearch
-
Stein v. NewSearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
Johnson v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Harris v. SouthSearch
-
Lee v. MississippiSearch
-
Malinski v. NewSearch
-
Vernon v. AlabamaSearch
-
Lomax v. TexasSearch
-
White v. TexasSearch
-
Canty v. AlabamaSearch
-
Brown v. MississippiSearch
-
on end when he has no lawyer present and when he has demanded that he have the benefit of legal advice. See Crooker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
when he asked for his lawyer and when his request was denied. This is a capital case, and, under the rule of Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
to be represented by counsel. This representation by counsel is not restricted to the trial. As stated in Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
trial itself. We do not have here mere suspects who are being secretly interrogated by the police, as in Crooker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
administrative or judicial proceedings, as in In re Groban, 352 U. S. 330 , and Anonymous Nos. 6 & 7 v. BakerSearch
-
effective representation by counsel. This seems to me to be a flagrant violation of the principle announced in Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Spano v. NewSearch
-
Norris v. AlabamaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial