Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "waiver" of the right to counsel for the ...
As stated in Brewer v.Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the right to counsel "means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, 'whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. ' " [2] Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversarial proceedings have begun ...
As stated in Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the right to counsel "[means] at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment."
Williams v. Florida: 399 U.S. 78 (1970) Twelve-man jury: North Carolina v. Alford: 400 U.S. 25 (1970) Guilty plea in criminal case Oregon v. Mitchell: 400 U.S. 112 (1970) Age and voting rights in state elections Massachusetts v. Laird: 400 U.S. 886 (1970) Court declined to hear a case related to the constitutionality of the Vietnam War: Baird v ...
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule.The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree".
Case name Citation Date decided Piper v. Chris-Craft Indus., Inc. 430 U.S. 1: 1977: Delaware Tribal Bus. Comm. v. Weeks: 430 U.S. 73: 1977: Califano v. Sanders
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "interrogation" for the purposes of Miranda warnings. Under Miranda v. Arizona, police are forbidden from interrogating a suspect once he has asserted his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
A. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education; Adams v. Illinois; Adams v. Texas; Adams v. Williams; Addington v. Texas; Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. Aetna Life Insurance Co ...