Bram v united states oyez. Ashcraft v. Tennessee :: 322 U.S. 143 (1944) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center 2022-12-11
Bram v united states oyez Rating:
An embarrassing experience that I will never forget happened to me during my freshman year of high school. I had just started attending a new school and was still trying to get used to my new surroundings and make friends. One day, during lunch, I was sitting with a group of people I had just met and we were all chatting and getting to know each other.
As we were talking, I suddenly had the urge to use the bathroom. I quickly excused myself and rushed to the nearest restroom, not wanting to hold it any longer. As I was washing my hands, I noticed that there was a strange smell emanating from the sink. I assumed it was just a dirty sink and tried to ignore it, but the smell was getting stronger and stronger.
As I was drying my hands, I suddenly realized that the smell was coming from me. I had accidentally sprayed perfume on my shirt instead of deodorant that morning and had been walking around all day with a strong smell of perfume emanating from my underarms. I was mortified and couldn't believe that I had made such a simple mistake.
I quickly ran back to the lunchroom, hoping that no one had noticed the smell. Unfortunately, as soon as I sat down, one of my new friends asked me if I had sprayed myself with perfume. I could feel the heat rising to my face as I sheepishly admitted that I had accidentally sprayed myself with perfume instead of deodorant.
The whole table erupted in laughter and I couldn't help but join in, even though I was mortified. Despite my embarrassment, the incident brought us all closer together and I learned to always double check what I was spraying on my body before leaving the house. It was a lesson that I will never forget and I still laugh about it to this day.
Boyd v. United States :: 116 U.S. 616 (1886) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
The protection of the Fourth Amendment reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not; and the duty of giving it force and effect is obligatory on all entrusted with the enforcement of Federal laws. We first examine the error relied on which seems to us deserving of the most serious consideration. As for the legislature, Black found that its purpose in this case was public shaming by making the types of allegations that had caused people to lose their jobs. Simpson, 1834 1 Moody 410, and Ry. You are not obliged to say anything unless you desire to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing, and may be given in evidence against you upon your trial.
Here, Tennessee, and I think very commendably, provided the double safeguards of a preliminary trial by the judge and a final determination by the jury. Nash, was aroused not far from two o'clock -- the exact time is not known, as he says -- by a scream, and by another sound, characterized by him as a gurgling sound. Other testimony is that, on Saturday night, he was brought a sandwich and coffee about midnight; that he drank the coffee, but refused the sandwich; that, on Sunday morning, he was given a breakfast and was fed again about noon a plate lunch consisting of meat and vegetables and coffee. For the reasons I have stated at the outset, however, I do not believe that the evidence involved in these cases falls within the scope of privacy protected by the Fifth Amendment. United States, 116 U. That in all suits and proceedings other than criminal arising under any of the revenue laws of the United States, the attorney representing the Government, whenever, in his belief, any business book, invoice, or paper belonging to or under the control of the defendant or claimant will tend to prove any allegation made by the United States, may make a written motion particularly describing such book, invoice, or paper and setting forth the allegation which he expects to prove, and thereupon the court in which suit or proceeding is pending may, at its discretion, issue a notice to the defendant or claimant to produce such book, invoice, or paper in court, at a day and hour to be specified in said notice, which, together with a copy of said motion, shall be served formally on the defendant or claimant by the United States marshal by delivering to him a certified copy thereof or otherwise serving the same as original notices of suit in the same court are served, and if the defendant or claimant shall fail or refuse to produce such book, invoice, or paper in obedience to such notice, the allegations stated in the said motion shall be taken as confessed unless his failure or refusal to produce the same shall be explained to the satisfaction of the court.
Brady v. United States :: 397 U.S. 742 (1970) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
On that day the said grand jurors were duly impaneled as the grand jury for the October term of this court, A. Conduct of the hearing both by the judge and the prosecutors was above criticism. The defendant's counsel was permitted to cross-examine the witness before the court ruled upon the objection, and the witness stated that the conversation took place in his office, where he had caused the defendant, Bram, to be brought by a police officer; that up to that time the defendant had been in the custody of the police authorities of Halifax, in the custody of the superintendent of police, John O'Sullivan; that the witness asked that the defendant should be brought to his office for the purpose of interviewing him; that at his office he stripped the defendant, and examined his clothing, but not his pockets; that he told the defendant to submit to an examination, and that he searched him; that the defendant was then in custody, and did everything the witness directed him to do; that the witness was then a police officer, acting in his official capacity; that all this took place before the defendant had been examined before the United States consul; and that the witness did not know that the local authorities had at that time taken any action, but that the defendant was held for the United States,-for the consul general of the United States. Warringham, 2 Denison, Cr. United States, 397 U. Newman, Conviction, The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial 3 and n. The door of mercy is open, and that of justice closed;" and threatening to arrest the accused and expose his family if he did not confess.
It is not an assertion of the right on the part of the government always recognized under English and American law to search the person of the accused when legally arrested, to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. He disclosed in his confession to them that her sickness had resulted in a degree of irritability which had made them incompatible and resulted in his sexual frustration. People, The witness Power, when called, testified positively that no threats were made nor any inducements held out to Bram; and this general declaration he affirmed and reaffirmed in response to inquiries made by the court and the defendant's counsel. Conceding that, closely analyzed, the hope of benefit which the conversation suggested was that of the removal from the conscience of the prisoner of the merely moral weight resulting from concealment, and therefore would not be an inducement, we are to consider the import of the conversation, not from a mere abstract point of view, but by the light of the impression that it was calculated to produce on the mind of the accused, situated as he was at the time the conversation took place. Supreme Court Weeks v. It has been decided that that would not prevent the statement's being received in evidence, by Littledale, J. A contrary holding would require the States and Federal Government to forbid guilty pleas altogether, to provide a single invariable penalty for each crime defined by the statutes, or to place the sentencing function in a separate authority having no knowledge of the manner in which the conviction in each case was obtained.
Fisher v. United States :: 425 U.S. 391 (1976) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
In 1967, petitioner sought post-conviction relief, in part on the ground that § 1201 a operated to coerce his plea. They have asked that, if we reverse Ashcraft's conviction, we also reverse Ware's. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. None whatever, sir; none whatever. Much of the confusion which has resulted from the effort to deduce from the adjudged cases what would be a sufficient quantum of proof to show that a confession was or was not voluntary has arisen from a misconception of the subject to which the proof must address itself. His request for post-conviction relief was denied. No, sir; not any.
Weeks v. United States :: 232 U.S. 383 (1914) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Enoch, also heretofore referred to, as illustrating the doctrine that assuring the accused that it would be better for him to speak, or other intimation given of possible benefit, would invalidate a confession thus induced. At the hearing of the pleas in abatement, it appeared that, when the grand jurors were impaneled, one of them, upon being called to be sworn, stated that he affirmed, and declined to take an oath, and, after his fellows had been regularly sworn, he was formally affirmed to the same duties specified in the oath administered to the others. Jackson, supra, does not impugn the truth or reliability of that plea. Not any, your honor. United States ex rel. It is true that the Court has often stated that one of the several purposes served by the constitutional privilege against compelled testimonial self-incrimination is that of protecting personal privacy. Baldry, 1852 2 Den.
Subsequently to this occurrence at Halifax, all the officers, the crew, and the passenger were examined before the American consul, and gave their statements, which were reduced to writing and sworn to. While it must not be considered that, by referring to these authorities, we approve them, it is yet manifest that, if learned judges have deduced the conclusion that silence is so weighty as to create an inference of guilt, it cannot, with justice, be said that the mind of one who is held in custody under suspicion of having committed a crime would not be impelled to say something when informed by one in authority that a co-suspect had declared that he had seen the person to whom the officer was addressing himself commit the offense, when otherwise he might have remained silent but for fear of the consequences which might ensue; that is to say, he would be impelled to speak either for fear that his failure to make answer would be considered against him, or in hope that, if he did reply, he would be benefited thereby. It is true these were civil cases, for it is only in the later history of this court that we have had jurisdiction of writs of It is true, the defendant objected to the admission of the conversation before it was given; but, upon the state of facts as then presented, unquestionably the trial court ruled properly in permitting the witness to testify, for he positively declared that there was neither threat nor promise, intimidation or inducement. Ware made his mark upon it and swore to it before Waldauer as a Notary Public. But the Court refuses in this case to be guided by this test. The trial judge only accepted the plea after asking twice whether it was voluntary.
We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. From this review, it clearly appears that the rule as to confessions by an accused leaving out of consideration the rule now followed in England restricting the effect of inducements, according as such inducements were or were not held out by persons in authority is in England today what it was prior to and at the adoption of the Fifth Amendment, and that, while all the decided cases necessarily rest upon the state of facts which the cases considered, nevertheless the decisions as a whole afford a safe guide by which to ascertain whether in this case the confession was voluntary, since the facts here presented are strikingly like those considered in many of the English cases. Can it be held that the court erred in not of its own motion stopping the witness, or striking out the testimony, or instructing the jury to disregard it, when defendant asked nothing of the kind? United States, "'free and voluntary: that is, must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence. Nash slept, with doors opening from the passenger's room into both the chart room used by the captain as his room and that of Mrs. The defendant understood that he was a prisoner, and he obeyed every order and direction that the witness gave. As the vessel came in sight of land and was approaching Halifax, the suspicions of the crew having been also directed to Bram, he was arrested by them and placed in irons.
New York: Garland, 1986. Efforts of prosecutors to compensate for this handicap by violent or brutal treatment or threats we condemn as passionately and sincerely as other members of the Court. And it refuses to resolve the conflicts in the other evidence to determine whether it rebuts the presumption thus reached that the confession is a coerced one. Arizona, "The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. No, there was nothing further said on that occasion. The summonses are narrowly drawn and seek only documents of unquestionable relevance to the tax investigation.