513:"I want to give you something to think about while we're traveling down the road.... Number one, I want you to observe the weather conditions, it's raining, it's sleeting, it's freezing, driving is very treacherous, visibility is poor, it's going to be dark early this evening. They are predicting several inches of snow for tonight, and I feel that you yourself are the only person that knows where this little girl's body is, that you yourself have only been there once, and if you get a snow on top of it you yourself may be unable to find it. And, since we will be going right past the area on the way into Des Moines, I feel that we could stop and locate the body, that the parents of this little girl should be entitled to a Christian burial for the little girl who was snatched away from them on
498:
Kelly firmly stated that the agreement with McKnight was to be carried out: that there was to be no interrogation of
Williams during the automobile journey to Des Moines. Kelly was denied permission to ride in the police car back to Des Moines with Williams and the two officers. The two detectives, with Williams in their charge, then set out on the 160 mi drive. At no time during the trip did Williams express a willingness to be interrogated in the absence of an attorney. Instead, he stated several times, "When I get to Des Moines and see Mr. McKnight, I am going to tell you the whole story." Detective Leaming knew that Williams was a former mental patient, and knew also that he was deeply religious.
591:
Williams had stated multiple times in the drive that he was going to speak but only after he consulted with a lawyer. The statements made by Det. Leaming were interrogation since they were made with the intention of eliciting an incriminating statement and played on a known susceptibility. There was no attempt on the part of Det. Leaming to determine whether
Williams wished to waive his right. There is no reasonable bases under the circumstances to assume that Williams had knowingly waived his right. Therefore, Williams was being interrogated in custody without the protection of counsel and without having waived that right.
552:. Counsel for the state and for Williams stipulated that "the case would be submitted on the record of facts and proceedings in the trial court, without taking of further testimony." The District Court made findings of fact as summarized above, and concluded as a matter of law that the evidence in question had been wrongly admitted at Williams' trial. This conclusion was based on three alternative and independent grounds: (1) Williams had been denied his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel; (2) he had been denied the constitutional protections defined by
133:
541:
his right to the presence of his counsel" on the automobile ride from
Davenport to Des Moines. The four dissenting justices expressed the view that "when counsel and police have agreed defendant is not to be questioned until counsel is present and defendant has been advised not to talk and repeatedly has stated he will tell the whole story after he talks with counsel, the state should be required to make a stronger showing of intentional voluntary waiver than was made here."
477:
talk to the officers about Pamela Powers until after consulting with McKnight upon his return to Des Moines. As a result of these conversations, it was agreed between McKnight and the Des Moines police officials that
Detective Leaming and a fellow officer would drive to Davenport to pick up Williams, that they would bring him directly back to Des Moines and that they would not question him during the trip.
24:
533:"an agreement was made between defense counsel and the police officials to the effect that the Defendant was not to be questioned on the return trip to Des Moines," and that the evidence in question had been elicited from Williams during "a critical stage in the proceedings requiring the presence of counsel on his request." The judge ruled, however, that Williams had "waived his
587:
strict standard and is applied equally to an alleged waiver whether it occurred at trial or in a pre-trial proceeding, such as interrogation. This is not to be read as stating that a defendant may not waive his right to counsel after invoking it, but the strictness is necessary to counter the pressure of law enforcement in solving a crime.
532:
Williams was indicted for first-degree murder. Before trial, his counsel moved to suppress all evidence relating to or resulting from any statements
Williams had made during the automobile ride from Davenport to Des Moines. After an evidentiary hearing the trial judge denied the motion. He found that
476:
In the presence of the Des Moines chief of police and a police detective named
Cleatus Leaming (died 2001), McKnight advised Williams that Des Moines police officers would be driving to Davenport to pick him up, that the officers would not interrogate him or mistreat him, and that Williams was not to
438:
is inadmissible. Here, however, the defendant had been indicted in court and had asserted his desire to have counsel, thus his Sixth
Amendment right to counsel had attached. At issue was whether a voluntary admission of incriminating facts in response to police statements made while the defendant was
602:
While neither
Williams' incriminating statements themselves nor any testimony describing his having led the police to the victim’s body can constitutionally be admitted into evidence, evidence of where the body was found and of its condition might well be admissible on the theory that the body would
540:
The evidence in question was introduced over counsel's continuing objection at the subsequent trial. The jury found
Williams guilty of murder, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court, a bare majority of whose members agreed with the trial court that Williams had "waived
524:
As the car approached
Grinnell, a town approximately 100 mi west of Davenport, Williams asked whether the police had found the victim's shoes. When Detective Leaming replied that he was unsure, Williams directed the officers to a service station where he said he had left the shoes; a search for
520:
Williams asked Detective Leaming why he thought their route to Des Moines would be taking them past the girl's body, and Leaming responded that he knew the body was in the area of Mitchellville, a town they would be passing on the way to Des Moines. Leaming then stated: "I do not want you to answer
458:
Robert Williams, who had recently escaped from a mental hospital, was a resident of the YMCA. Soon after the girl's disappearance Williams was seen in the YMCA lobby carrying some clothing and a large bundle wrapped in a blanket. He obtained help from a 14-year-old boy in opening the street door of
590:
Once judicial proceedings begin (here, the arraignment in Davenport, Iowa), the Sixth Amendment dictates that a suspect has the right to counsel. Williams had asserted his right to counsel. He had two lawyers, both had expressed to police that Williams was not to be interrogated without them, and
497:
Williams then conferred again with Kelly alone, and after this conference, Kelly reiterated to Detective Leaming that Williams was not to be questioned about the disappearance of Pamela Powers until after he had consulted with McKnight back in Des Moines. When Leaming expressed some reservations,
586:
once adversary proceedings have commenced against an individual, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him." The right to counsel "does not depend upon a request by the defendant, and the courts indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver." This is a
459:
the YMCA and the door to his automobile parked outside. When Williams placed the bundle in the front seat of his car the boy "saw two legs in it and they were skinny and white." Before anyone could see what was in the bundle, Williams drove away. His abandoned car was found the following day in
616:
Williams then received a second trial, in which his attorneys again moved to suppress all evidence stemming from the interrogation of Williams by the detectives. The judge ruled that Williams' statements to the detectives was inadmissible, but citing Stewart's footnote, ruled that the body was
501:
The detective and his prisoner soon embarked on a wideranging conversation covering a variety of topics, including the subject of religion. Then, not long after leaving Davenport and reaching the interstate highway, Detective Leaming delivered what has been referred to in the briefs and oral
466:
On the morning of December 26, a Des Moines lawyer named Henry McKnight went to the Des Moines police station and informed the officers present that he had just received a long-distance call from Williams and that he had advised Williams to turn himself in to the Davenport police. Williams
525:
them proved unsuccessful. As they continued towards Des Moines, Williams asked whether the police had found the blanket, and directed the officers to a rest area where he said he had disposed of the blanket. Nothing was found. The car continued towards Des Moines, and as it approached
488:
Detective Leaming and his fellow officer arrived in Davenport about noon to pick up Williams and return him to Des Moines. Soon after their arrival they met with Williams and Kelly, who, they understood, was acting as Williams' lawyer. Detective Leaming repeated the
562:; and (3) in any event, his self-incriminatory statements on the automobile trip from Davenport to Des Moines had been involuntarily made. Further, the District Court ruled that there had been no waiver by Williams of the constitutional protections in question.
473:. The Davenport police then telephoned the counterparts in Des Moines to inform them that Williams had surrendered. McKnight, the lawyer, was still at the Des Moines police headquarters, and Williams conversed with McKnight on the telephone.
493:
warnings, and told Williams: "e both know that you're being represented here by Mr. Kelly and you're being represented by Mr. McKnight in Des Moines, and... I want you to remember this because we'll be visiting between here and Des Moines."
581:
Stewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Powell, and Stevens, held that for a waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to be acknowledged by the court, it is "incumbent upon the State to prove 'an intentional relinquishment or abandonment'..."
2295:
484:
rights and committed him to jail. Before leaving the courtroom, Williams conferred with a lawyer named Kelly, who advised him not to make any statements until consulting with McKnight back in Des Moines.
2290:
549:
636:
517:
and murdered. And I feel we should stop and locate it on the way in rather than waiting until morning and trying to come back out after a snow storm and possibly not being able to find it at all."
455:, to watch a wrestling tournament in which her brother was participating. When she failed to return from a trip to the washroom, a search for her began. The search was unsuccessful.
875:
847:
774:
729:
672:
418:
239:
184:
961:
404:
2212:
607:... In the event that a retrial is instituted, it will be for the state courts in the first instance to determine whether particular items of evidence may be admitted.
644:, 2011 English case where defendant's confession was suppressed because he was persuaded by police to show them to the body after being denied access to counsel
2285:
467:
surrendered that morning to the police in Davenport, who booked him on the charge specified in the arrest warrant and gave him the warnings required by
2246:
598:'s majority opinion, however, contained a footnote suggesting that the evidence provided by Williams could still be constitutionally used in a trial:
952:
2300:
566:
798:
617:
admissible as evidence, as it would have inevitably been discovered by law enforcement. On July 15, 1977, Williams was again convicted of
463:, roughly 160 mi (260 km) east of Des Moines. A warrant was then issued in Des Moines for his arrest on a charge of abduction.
2053:
1345:
41:
1826:
1257:
1107:
425:
137:
2012:
480:
In the meantime, Williams was arraigned before a judge in Davenport on the outstanding arrest warrant. The judge advised him of his
262:
safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected either to express questioning or to its "functional equivalent."
107:
88:
1973:
1874:
60:
529:, Williams said that he would show the officers where the body was. He then directed the police to the body of Pamela Powers.
1687:
45:
1524:
1489:
1265:
641:
67:
1855:
945:
534:
1711:
1404:
1281:
1190:
74:
1917:
1230:
1222:
691:
34:
1806:
1599:
1377:
1214:
1126:
987:
428:
that clarifies what constitutes "waiver" of the right to counsel for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Under
2192:
2021:
2000:
1703:
1607:
1369:
1353:
1329:
1134:
1003:
56:
692:
Bovsun, Mara (2012). "Bury her for Christmas: How the murder of Pamela Powers, 10, reached Supreme Court."
2061:
1781:
1623:
1508:
1481:
1473:
1313:
1158:
938:
913:
754:
215:
165:
1965:
1735:
1655:
1321:
1273:
1091:
447:
On the afternoon of December 24, 1968, a 10-year-old girl named Pamela Powers went with her family to the
285:
2222:
2077:
2037:
1941:
1297:
1166:
879:
851:
778:
733:
676:
421:
243:
176:
1174:
707:
2101:
2045:
1933:
1925:
1727:
1580:
1305:
1011:
724:
603:
have been discovered in any event, even had incriminating statements not been elicited from Williams.
554:
2230:
2133:
1949:
1818:
1679:
1671:
1663:
1412:
1150:
1099:
975:
895:
618:
526:
317:
886:
2254:
2125:
2093:
1981:
1834:
1695:
1559:
1444:
1436:
1206:
1198:
1053:
667:
469:
439:
in custody and outside the presence of his lawyer constituted a waiver of this right to counsel.
430:
817:
521:
me. I don't want to discuss it any further. Just think about it as we're riding down the road."
81:
2117:
2109:
1957:
1901:
1893:
1762:
1639:
1516:
1452:
1428:
1420:
1249:
329:
321:
305:
2238:
2157:
2085:
2029:
1743:
1615:
1361:
505:
452:
434:, evidence obtained by police during interrogation of a suspect before he has been read his
277:
1647:
1631:
1464:
1289:
995:
842:
623:
460:
234:
930:
573:. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutional issues presented.
569:, with one judge dissenting, affirmed this judgment and denied a petition for rehearing
2173:
2149:
2141:
1909:
1396:
1182:
904:
854:
781:
736:
679:
595:
435:
309:
293:
246:
2279:
2165:
1719:
1337:
1142:
545:
514:
2069:
1045:
1032:
627:(1984), which affirmed the constitutionality of an inevitable discovery exception.
179:
297:
23:
156:
Lou V. Brewer, Warden v. Robert Anthony Williams, a/k/a Anthony Erthel Williams
191:
922:
758:
219:
448:
212:
1853:
1804:
1578:
1547:
1072:
1030:
973:
934:
132:
17:
637:
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger Court
2296:
United States Sixth Amendment assistance of counsel case law
510:
Addressing Williams as "Reverend," the detective said:
2291:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
621:. This conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in
346:
Stewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Stevens
2211:
2184:
2011:
1992:
1885:
1866:
1773:
1754:
1591:
1500:
1463:
1388:
1241:
1118:
1083:
398:
390:
382:
374:
366:
358:
350:
342:
337:
266:
253:
226:
204:
199:
171:
161:
151:
144:
125:
48:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
946:
8:
1863:
1850:
1801:
1588:
1575:
1544:
1080:
1069:
1027:
970:
953:
939:
931:
122:
2247:Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California
792:
790:
662:
660:
658:
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
537:during the giving of such information."
803:and the Inevitable Discovery Exception"
654:
567:Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
544:Williams then petitioned for a writ of
810:St. Louis University Public Law Review
120:1977 United States Supreme Court case
7:
394:Blackmun, joined by White, Rehnquist
386:White, joined by Blackmun, Rehnquist
46:adding citations to reliable sources
1346:Southern Union Co. v. United States
1827:United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
1258:Almendarez-Torres v. United States
1108:Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas
138:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
2286:United States Supreme Court cases
1774:Restrictions on cross-examination
882:387 (1977) is available from:
535:right to have an attorney present
424:387 (1977), is a decision by the
131:
22:
1875:United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
33:needs additional citations for
2301:1977 in United States case law
1688:Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
1191:Rosales-Lopez v. United States
1:
962:United States Sixth Amendment
1856:Assistance of Counsel Clause
1405:Rassmussen v. United States
426:United States Supreme Court
2317:
1755:Face-to-face confrontation
1525:Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado
1223:McDonnell v. United States
923:Oyez (oral argument audio)
714:Retrieved January 4, 2019.
698:Retrieved January 4, 2019.
642:Murder of Sian O'Callaghan
1862:
1849:
1813:
1807:Compulsory Process Clause
1800:
1600:Reynolds v. United States
1587:
1574:
1554:
1543:
1378:Erlinger v. United States
1231:United States v. Tsarnaev
1215:Skilling v. United States
1127:Reynolds v. United States
1079:
1068:
1040:
1026:
988:Klopfer v. North Carolina
982:
969:
816:: 397–446. Archived from
550:Southern District of Iowa
548:in federal court for the
403:
271:
258:
130:
2193:Massiah v. United States
2022:Strickland v. Washington
2001:Glasser v. United States
1974:Nichols v. United States
1704:Bullcoming v. New Mexico
1608:Dowdell v. United States
1370:United States v. Haymond
1354:Alleyne v. United States
1330:Cunningham v. California
1135:Glasser v. United States
1004:Doggett v. United States
797:McInnis, Tom N. (2006).
2062:Glover v. United States
1782:Chambers v. Mississippi
1624:Bruton v. United States
1592:Out-of-court statements
1509:Tanner v. United States
1501:Impeachment of verdicts
1482:Burton v. United States
1474:United States v. Dawson
1314:United States v. Booker
1282:Harris v. United States
1159:Witherspoon v. Illinois
710:The Des Moines Register
2185:Uncounseled statements
2013:Ineffective assistance
1966:Pennsylvania v. Finley
1736:Samia v. United States
1656:Crawford v. Washington
1490:Smith v. United States
1322:Washington v. Recuenco
1274:Apprendi v. New Jersey
1266:Jones v. United States
1092:Cheff v. Schnackenberg
609:
286:William J. Brennan Jr.
147:Decided March 23, 1977
145:Argued October 4, 1976
2223:Faretta v. California
2078:Woodford v. Visciotti
2038:Kimmelman v. Morrison
1942:Argersinger v. Hamlin
1298:Blakely v. Washington
1167:Ham v. South Carolina
1074:Impartial Jury Clause
600:
405:U.S. Const. amend. VI
2102:Wright v. Van Patten
2046:Lockhart v. Fretwell
1934:Anders v. California
1926:Gideon v. Wainwright
1728:Hemphill v. New York
1712:Williams v. Illinois
1581:Confrontation Clause
1306:Schriro v. Summerlin
1012:Betterman v. Montana
755:509 F.2d 227
725:Escobedo v. Illinois
712:, February 25, 2001.
555:Escobedo v. Illinois
57:"Brewer v. Williams"
42:improve this article
2231:McKaskle v. Wiggins
2134:Padilla v. Kentucky
1950:Gagnon v. Scarpelli
1918:Hamilton v. Alabama
1819:Washington v. Texas
1680:Giles v. California
1672:Whorton v. Bockting
1664:Davis v. Washington
1413:Williams v. Florida
1151:Sheppard v. Maxwell
1100:Duncan v. Louisiana
976:Speedy Trial Clause
914:Library of Congress
823:on December 3, 2013
694:New York Daily News
619:first degree murder
318:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
190:97 S. Ct. 1232; 51
2255:Indiana v. Edwards
2201:Brewer v. Williams
2126:Porter v. McCollum
2094:Holland v. Jackson
2054:Williams v. Taylor
1982:Alabama v. Shelton
1835:Taylor v. Illinois
1696:Michigan v. Bryant
1560:Rabe v. Washington
1549:Information Clause
1445:Ramos v. Louisiana
1437:Burch v. Louisiana
1389:Size and unanimity
1207:Morgan v. Illinois
1199:Wainwright v. Witt
1054:Presley v. Georgia
872:Brewer v. Williams
771:Brewer v. Williams
750:Williams v. Brewer
708:"Cleatus Leaming"
696:December 16, 2012.
668:Miranda v. Arizona
560:Miranda v. Arizona
470:Miranda v. Arizona
431:Miranda v. Arizona
414:Brewer v. Williams
282:Associate Justices
209:Williams v. Brewer
126:Brewer v. Williams
2273:
2272:
2269:
2268:
2265:
2264:
2118:Wong v. Belmontes
2110:Bobby v. Van Hook
1958:Scott v. Illinois
1902:Johnson v. Zerbst
1894:Powell v. Alabama
1845:
1844:
1796:
1795:
1792:
1791:
1763:Maryland v. Craig
1640:Illinois v. Allen
1570:
1569:
1539:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1517:Warger v. Shauers
1453:Edwards v. Vannoy
1429:Ballew v. Georgia
1421:Apodaca v. Oregon
1250:Walton v. Arizona
1064:
1063:
1022:
1021:
502:arguments as the
443:Facts of the Case
410:
409:
322:William Rehnquist
306:Thurgood Marshall
118:
117:
110:
92:
2308:
2239:Rock v. Arkansas
2158:Lafler v. Cooper
2086:Wiggins v. Smith
2030:Nix v. Whiteside
1864:
1851:
1802:
1744:Smith v. Arizona
1616:Pointer v. Texas
1589:
1576:
1545:
1362:Hurst v. Florida
1175:Ristaino v. Ross
1081:
1070:
1028:
971:
955:
948:
941:
932:
927:
921:
918:
912:
909:
903:
900:
894:
891:
885:
858:
839:
833:
832:
830:
828:
822:
807:
794:
785:
768:
762:
752:
746:
740:
721:
715:
705:
699:
689:
683:
664:
606:
585:
506:Christian burial
453:Des Moines, Iowa
278:Warren E. Burger
267:Court membership
135:
134:
123:
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
50:
26:
18:
2316:
2315:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2261:
2207:
2180:
2007:
1988:
1881:
1858:
1841:
1809:
1788:
1769:
1750:
1648:Ohio v. Roberts
1632:Frazier v. Cupp
1583:
1566:
1550:
1531:
1496:
1465:Vicinage Clause
1459:
1384:
1290:Ring v. Arizona
1237:
1114:
1075:
1060:
1036:
1018:
996:Barker v. Wingo
978:
965:
959:
925:
919:
916:
910:
907:
901:
898:
892:
889:
883:
867:
862:
861:
843:Nix v. Williams
840:
836:
826:
824:
820:
805:
801:Nix v. Williams
796:
795:
788:
769:
765:
748:
747:
743:
722:
718:
706:
702:
690:
686:
665:
656:
651:
633:
624:Nix v. Williams
614:
604:
583:
579:
445:
330:John P. Stevens
320:
308:
296:
235:Nix v. Williams
195:
146:
140:
121:
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
39:
27:
12:
11:
5:
2314:
2312:
2304:
2303:
2298:
2293:
2288:
2278:
2277:
2271:
2270:
2267:
2266:
2263:
2262:
2260:
2259:
2251:
2243:
2235:
2227:
2218:
2216:
2215:representation
2209:
2208:
2206:
2205:
2197:
2188:
2186:
2182:
2181:
2179:
2178:
2174:Garza v. Idaho
2170:
2162:
2154:
2150:Premo v. Moore
2146:
2142:Sears v. Upton
2138:
2130:
2122:
2114:
2106:
2098:
2090:
2082:
2074:
2066:
2058:
2050:
2042:
2034:
2026:
2017:
2015:
2009:
2008:
2006:
2005:
1996:
1994:
1990:
1989:
1987:
1986:
1978:
1970:
1962:
1954:
1946:
1938:
1930:
1922:
1914:
1910:Betts v. Brady
1906:
1898:
1889:
1887:
1883:
1882:
1880:
1879:
1870:
1868:
1860:
1859:
1854:
1847:
1846:
1843:
1842:
1840:
1839:
1831:
1823:
1814:
1811:
1810:
1805:
1798:
1797:
1794:
1793:
1790:
1789:
1787:
1786:
1777:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1768:
1767:
1758:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1749:
1748:
1740:
1732:
1724:
1716:
1708:
1700:
1692:
1684:
1676:
1668:
1660:
1652:
1644:
1636:
1628:
1620:
1612:
1604:
1595:
1593:
1585:
1584:
1579:
1572:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1565:
1564:
1555:
1552:
1551:
1548:
1541:
1540:
1537:
1536:
1533:
1532:
1530:
1529:
1521:
1513:
1504:
1502:
1498:
1497:
1495:
1494:
1486:
1478:
1469:
1467:
1461:
1460:
1458:
1457:
1449:
1441:
1433:
1425:
1417:
1409:
1401:
1397:Maxwell v. Dow
1392:
1390:
1386:
1385:
1383:
1382:
1374:
1366:
1358:
1350:
1342:
1334:
1326:
1318:
1310:
1302:
1294:
1286:
1278:
1270:
1262:
1254:
1245:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1236:
1235:
1227:
1219:
1211:
1203:
1195:
1187:
1183:Adams v. Texas
1179:
1171:
1163:
1155:
1147:
1139:
1131:
1122:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1113:
1112:
1104:
1096:
1087:
1085:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1061:
1059:
1058:
1050:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1031:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1019:
1017:
1016:
1008:
1000:
992:
983:
980:
979:
974:
967:
966:
960:
958:
957:
950:
943:
935:
929:
928:
896:Google Scholar
866:
865:External links
863:
860:
859:
834:
786:
763:
741:
716:
700:
684:
653:
652:
650:
647:
646:
645:
639:
632:
629:
613:
610:
596:Potter Stewart
578:
575:
444:
441:
436:Miranda rights
408:
407:
401:
400:
396:
395:
392:
388:
387:
384:
380:
379:
376:
372:
371:
368:
364:
363:
360:
356:
355:
352:
348:
347:
344:
340:
339:
335:
334:
333:
332:
310:Harry Blackmun
294:Potter Stewart
283:
280:
275:
269:
268:
264:
263:
256:
255:
251:
250:
228:
224:
223:
206:
202:
201:
197:
196:
189:
173:
169:
168:
163:
159:
158:
153:
152:Full case name
149:
148:
142:
141:
136:
128:
127:
119:
116:
115:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2313:
2302:
2299:
2297:
2294:
2292:
2289:
2287:
2284:
2283:
2281:
2257:
2256:
2252:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2241:
2240:
2236:
2233:
2232:
2228:
2225:
2224:
2220:
2219:
2217:
2214:
2210:
2203:
2202:
2198:
2195:
2194:
2190:
2189:
2187:
2183:
2176:
2175:
2171:
2168:
2167:
2166:Buck v. Davis
2163:
2160:
2159:
2155:
2152:
2151:
2147:
2144:
2143:
2139:
2136:
2135:
2131:
2128:
2127:
2123:
2120:
2119:
2115:
2112:
2111:
2107:
2104:
2103:
2099:
2096:
2095:
2091:
2088:
2087:
2083:
2080:
2079:
2075:
2072:
2071:
2067:
2064:
2063:
2059:
2056:
2055:
2051:
2048:
2047:
2043:
2040:
2039:
2035:
2032:
2031:
2027:
2024:
2023:
2019:
2018:
2016:
2014:
2010:
2003:
2002:
1998:
1997:
1995:
1993:Conflict-free
1991:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1976:
1975:
1971:
1968:
1967:
1963:
1960:
1959:
1955:
1952:
1951:
1947:
1944:
1943:
1939:
1936:
1935:
1931:
1928:
1927:
1923:
1920:
1919:
1915:
1912:
1911:
1907:
1904:
1903:
1899:
1896:
1895:
1891:
1890:
1888:
1884:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1871:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1852:
1848:
1837:
1836:
1832:
1829:
1828:
1824:
1821:
1820:
1816:
1815:
1812:
1808:
1803:
1799:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1778:
1776:
1772:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1759:
1757:
1753:
1746:
1745:
1741:
1738:
1737:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1725:
1722:
1721:
1720:Ohio v. Clark
1717:
1714:
1713:
1709:
1706:
1705:
1701:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1682:
1681:
1677:
1674:
1673:
1669:
1666:
1665:
1661:
1658:
1657:
1653:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1642:
1641:
1637:
1634:
1633:
1629:
1626:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1617:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1605:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1596:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1573:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1556:
1553:
1546:
1542:
1527:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1518:
1514:
1511:
1510:
1506:
1505:
1503:
1499:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1484:
1483:
1479:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1468:
1466:
1462:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1391:
1387:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1339:
1338:Oregon v. Ice
1335:
1332:
1331:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1244:
1240:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1143:Irvin v. Dowd
1140:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1121:
1117:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1071:
1067:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1034:
1029:
1025:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1006:
1005:
1001:
998:
997:
993:
990:
989:
985:
984:
981:
977:
972:
968:
963:
956:
951:
949:
944:
942:
937:
936:
933:
924:
915:
906:
897:
888:
887:CourtListener
881:
877:
873:
869:
868:
864:
856:
853:
849:
845:
844:
838:
835:
819:
815:
811:
804:
802:
793:
791:
787:
783:
780:
776:
772:
767:
764:
760:
756:
751:
745:
742:
738:
735:
731:
727:
726:
720:
717:
713:
711:
704:
701:
697:
695:
688:
685:
681:
678:
674:
670:
669:
663:
661:
659:
655:
648:
643:
640:
638:
635:
634:
630:
628:
626:
625:
620:
611:
608:
599:
597:
592:
588:
576:
574:
572:
568:
563:
561:
557:
556:
551:
547:
546:habeas corpus
542:
538:
536:
530:
528:
527:Mitchellville
522:
518:
516:
511:
509:
507:
499:
495:
492:
486:
483:
478:
474:
472:
471:
464:
462:
456:
454:
450:
442:
440:
437:
433:
432:
427:
423:
420:
416:
415:
406:
402:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
338:Case opinions
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
284:
281:
279:
276:
274:Chief Justice
273:
272:
270:
265:
261:
257:
252:
248:
245:
241:
237:
236:
232:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
210:
207:
203:
198:
193:
187:
186:
181:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
160:
157:
154:
150:
143:
139:
129:
124:
112:
109:
101:
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
43:
37:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
2253:
2245:
2237:
2229:
2221:
2200:
2199:
2191:
2172:
2164:
2156:
2148:
2140:
2132:
2124:
2116:
2108:
2100:
2092:
2084:
2076:
2070:Bell v. Cone
2068:
2060:
2052:
2044:
2036:
2028:
2020:
1999:
1980:
1972:
1964:
1956:
1948:
1940:
1932:
1924:
1916:
1908:
1900:
1892:
1873:
1833:
1825:
1817:
1780:
1761:
1742:
1734:
1726:
1718:
1710:
1702:
1694:
1686:
1678:
1670:
1662:
1654:
1646:
1638:
1630:
1622:
1614:
1606:
1598:
1558:
1523:
1515:
1507:
1488:
1485:(1905, 1906)
1480:
1472:
1451:
1443:
1435:
1427:
1419:
1411:
1403:
1395:
1376:
1368:
1360:
1352:
1344:
1336:
1328:
1320:
1312:
1304:
1296:
1288:
1280:
1272:
1264:
1256:
1248:
1229:
1221:
1213:
1205:
1197:
1189:
1181:
1173:
1165:
1157:
1149:
1141:
1133:
1125:
1119:Impartiality
1106:
1098:
1090:
1084:Availability
1052:
1046:In re Oliver
1044:
1033:Public Trial
1010:
1002:
994:
986:
871:
857: (1984).
841:
837:
825:. Retrieved
818:the original
813:
809:
800:
784: (1977).
770:
766:
749:
744:
739: (1964).
723:
719:
709:
703:
693:
687:
682: (1966).
666:
622:
615:
601:
593:
589:
580:
570:
564:
559:
553:
543:
539:
531:
523:
519:
515:Christmas ve
512:
503:
500:
496:
490:
487:
481:
479:
475:
468:
465:
457:
446:
429:
413:
412:
411:
399:Laws applied
325:
313:
301:
289:
259:
249: (1984).
233:
230:
208:
200:Case history
183:
155:
104:
98:January 2011
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
40:Please help
35:verification
32:
15:
1886:Appointment
1242:Facts found
761: 1975).
367:Concurrence
359:Concurrence
351:Concurrence
298:Byron White
2280:Categories
827:August 11,
649:References
227:Subsequent
162:Docket no.
68:newspapers
612:Aftermath
461:Davenport
192:L. Ed. 2d
172:Citations
964:case law
870:Text of
759:8th Cir.
631:See also
594:Justice
577:Decision
508:speech."
354:Marshall
343:Majority
220:8th Cir.
571:en banc
491:Miranda
482:Miranda
391:Dissent
383:Dissent
375:Dissent
370:Stevens
260:Miranda
254:Holding
166:74-1263
82:scholar
2258:(2008)
2250:(2000)
2242:(1987)
2234:(1984)
2226:(1975)
2213:Pro se
2204:(1977)
2196:(1963)
2177:(2019)
2169:(2017)
2161:(2012)
2153:(2011)
2145:(2010)
2137:(2010)
2129:(2009)
2121:(2009)
2113:(2009)
2105:(2008)
2097:(2004)
2089:(2003)
2081:(2002)
2073:(2002)
2065:(2001)
2057:(2000)
2049:(1993)
2041:(1986)
2033:(1986)
2025:(1984)
2004:(1942)
1985:(2002)
1977:(1994)
1969:(1987)
1961:(1979)
1953:(1973)
1945:(1972)
1937:(1967)
1929:(1963)
1921:(1961)
1913:(1942)
1905:(1938)
1897:(1932)
1878:(2006)
1867:Choice
1838:(1988)
1830:(1982)
1822:(1967)
1785:(1973)
1766:(1990)
1747:(2024)
1739:(2023)
1731:(2022)
1723:(2015)
1715:(2012)
1707:(2011)
1699:(2011)
1691:(2009)
1683:(2008)
1675:(2007)
1667:(2006)
1659:(2004)
1651:(1980)
1643:(1970)
1635:(1969)
1627:(1968)
1619:(1965)
1611:(1911)
1603:(1878)
1563:(1972)
1528:(2017)
1520:(2014)
1512:(1987)
1493:(2023)
1477:(1853)
1456:(2021)
1448:(2020)
1440:(1979)
1432:(1978)
1424:(1972)
1416:(1970)
1408:(1905)
1400:(1900)
1381:(2024)
1373:(2019)
1365:(2016)
1357:(2013)
1349:(2012)
1341:(2009)
1333:(2007)
1325:(2006)
1317:(2005)
1309:(2004)
1301:(2004)
1293:(2002)
1285:(2002)
1277:(2000)
1269:(1999)
1261:(1998)
1253:(1990)
1234:(2022)
1226:(2016)
1218:(2010)
1210:(1992)
1202:(1985)
1194:(1981)
1186:(1980)
1178:(1976)
1170:(1973)
1162:(1968)
1154:(1966)
1146:(1961)
1138:(1942)
1130:(1878)
1111:(1989)
1103:(1968)
1095:(1966)
1057:(2010)
1049:(1948)
1035:Clause
1015:(2016)
1007:(1992)
999:(1972)
991:(1967)
926:
920:
917:
911:
908:
905:Justia
902:
899:
893:
890:
884:
846:,
773:,
757: (
753:,
728:,
671:,
605:
584:
558:, and
378:Burger
362:Powell
328:
326:·
324:
316:
314:·
312:
304:
302:·
300:
292:
290:·
288:
238:,
211:, 509
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
878:
850:
821:(PDF)
806:(PDF)
777:
732:
675:
242:
222:1975)
205:Prior
89:JSTOR
75:books
880:U.S.
852:U.S.
829:2013
779:U.S.
734:U.S.
677:U.S.
582:"...
565:The
449:YMCA
422:U.S.
244:U.S.
213:F.2d
185:more
177:U.S.
175:430
61:news
876:430
855:431
848:467
782:387
775:430
737:478
730:378
680:436
673:384
451:in
419:430
247:431
240:467
231:See
216:227
194:424
180:387
44:by
2282::
874:,
814:28
812:.
808:.
789:^
657:^
417:,
954:e
947:t
940:v
831:.
799:"
504:"
218:(
188:)
182:(
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
