green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. DeTella
See People v. Speck, 41 Ill.2d 177 , 242 N.E.2d 208, 222 (1971), vacated in part on other grounds, 403 U.S. 946 , 91 S.Ct. 2279 , 29 L.Ed.2d 855 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ronald Clark O'Bryan v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent
(2×)
See 403 U.S. 946 -948, 91 S.Ct. pages 2273, 2277-2284, 2287-2292
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Singletary
(2×)
See State v. Mathis, 52 N. J. 238, 248 (1964), rev’d on other grounds 403 U. S. 946 , 91 S. Ct. 2277 , 29 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mazur
See State v. Mathis, 47 N.J. 455, 468-469 (1966), aff'd 52 N.J. 238 (1968), rev'd on other grounds 403 U.S. 946 , 91 S.Ct. 2277 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 855 (1971), reh. den. 404 U.S. 876 , 92 S.Ct. 31 , 30 L.Ed. 2d 125 (1971); cf. 3A Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourn rev. 1970), § 951 at 796.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sellars v. Estelle
See Whan, Appellant, v. State of Texas, Appellee, Tex.Crim.App.1972, 485 S.W.2d 275 , by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas upon the going down of the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States in Whan v. Texas, 1971, 403 U.S. 946 , 91 S.Ct. 2281 , 29 L.Ed.2d 856 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Pruitt
See 29 L.Ed.2d pp. 855-859, inclusive [ 403 U.S. 946 -948, 91 S.Ct. 2273 , 2277, 2278, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2282, 2283, 2284, 2286, 2287, 2288, 2289, 2290, 2291,].
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Holland
(2×)
See Mathis v. New Jersey, 403 U.S. 946 , 91 S.Ct. 2277 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 855 (1971), rehearing and motion for clarification denied, 404 U.S. ___ , 92 S.Ct. 31 , 30 L.Ed.2d 125 (1971); Funicello v. New Jersey, 403 U.S. 948 , 91 S.Ct. 2278 , 29 L.Ed. 2 d 859 (1971), rehearing and motion for clarification denied, 404 U.S. ___ , 92 S.Ct. 31 , 30 L.Ed.2d 125 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roy B. Scrivner v. Robert J. Tansy, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
Cf. Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882, 885 (9th Cir.1990) (to prevail on federal habeas, petitioner must demonstrate violation of his constitutional or other federal right). 21 A trial court's failure to afford a defendant the right of allocution raises neither a jurisdictional nor a constitutional error cognizable in habeas. 5 Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 , 82 S.Ct. 468, 471 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); see also Segura v. Patterson, 402 F.2d 249, 252-53 (10th Cir.1968), rev'd on other grounds, 403 U.S. 946 , 91 S.Ct. 2280 , 29 L.Ed.2d 856 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Scrivner v. Tansy
A trial court’s failure to afford a defendant the right of allocution raises neither a jurisdictional nor a constitutional error cognizable in habeas. 5 Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 , 82 S.Ct. 468, 471 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); see also Segura v. Patterson, 402 F.2d 249, 252-53 (10th Cir.1968), rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 946 , 91 S.Ct. 2280 , 29 L.Ed.2d 856 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lewis v. United States
See also Clark v. Smith, 403 U.S. 946 , 91 S.Ct. 2279 , 29 L.Ed.2d 859 (1971), rev’g 224 Ga. 766 , 164 S.E.2d 790 (1968) (conviction summarily reversed where accused had been informed of all Miranda rights except the right to court-appointed lawyer in case of indigency); Moore v. United States, 457 A.2d 406, 409 (D.C.1983) (“anything less” than informing an accused of “the entire litany of \Miranda ] rights ... will render a subsequent statement inadmissible at trial during the government’s case-in-chief”). *1128 The government does not contest this principle.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bell v. State
See also Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184 (6th Cir. 1975) (en banc) (in the My Lai court-martial case, the Court of Appeals found the petitioner had not been deprived of a fair trial by prejudicial publicity); United States v. Haldeman, 181 U.S.App.D.C. 254 , 559 F.2d 31 (1976) (en banc) (in a trial of one of the Watergate defendants, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly refused requests for a change of venue or a continuance when the defendants failed to show any actual prejudice among the members of the jury); see also People v. Speck, 41 Ill.2d 177 , 242 N.E.2d 208 (1968…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Branam
Compare State v. Mathis, 47 N.J. 455, 467 (1966), aff'd 52 N.J. 238 (1968), rev'd on other grounds, 403 U.S. 946 , 91 S.Ct. 2277 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 855 (1971), reh. den. 404 U.S. 876 , 92 S.Ct. 31 , 30 L.Ed. 2d 125 (1971). *62 Further, we fail to find any real inconsistency where, as here, defendant contends that she intended to commit no crime and that the acts which might give rise to an inference of intent were induced by an agent of the State.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clark
v.
Smith, Warden
v.
Smith, Warden
No. 5020.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 28, 1971.
Black.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Sup. Ct. Ga. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment reversed,' Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and case remanded for further proceedings.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.