Nomination of Warren E. Burger: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-first Congress, First Session, on Nomination of Warren E. Burger, of Virginia, to be Chief Justice of the United States, Tuesday, June 3, 1969
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969 - 116 páginas
Opinião das pessoas - Escrever uma crítica
Não foram encontradas quaisquer críticas nos locais habituais.
Outras edições - Ver tudo
accused action administration Amendment American Bar appellant application arrest Attorney Baker branch Chairman Chief Justice Circuit Civil claims Committee concern conduct confession confirmation Congress consider Constitution counsel course crime criminal criminal justice decided decisions determination dissenting District Court District of Columbia duty EASTLAND effect evidence exclusion fact Federal Bar Association FEDERAL REPORTER give ground hearing holding House identification issue JAMES Judge Burger judgment judicial Judiciary Committee June jurisdiction L.Ed lawyers legislative majority Mallory matter meaning ment Miranda nomination opinion past president person police political Powell present President problems procedure protection qualifications question reason recent record REPORTER Representatives Resolution rules S.Ct Select Senator served society statement suggest supra Supreme Court tion trial United vote waiver Warren Washington York
Página 97 - If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.
Página 72 - Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the...
Página 76 - The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.
Página 80 - In short, to things generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it.
Página 42 - The premise for the Court's rule is not the general unreliability of eyewitness identifications nor the difficulties inherent in observation, recall, and recognition. The Court assumes a narrower evil as the basis for its rule — improper police suggestion which contributes to erroneous identifications. The Court apparently believes that improper police procedures are so widespread that a broad prophylactic rule must be laid down, requiring the presence of counsel at all pretrial identifications,...
Página 79 - The New Hampshire Constitution (Art. XXX, 1784) contained a provision virtually identical to Massachusetts'. In short "[fjreedom of speech and action in the legislature was taken as a matter of course by those who served the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation.
Página 75 - In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration, shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.
Página 79 - In order to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence.
Página 42 - tainted fruit" determination required by the Court involves more than considerable difficulty. I think it is practically impossible. How is a witness capable of probing the recesses of his mind to draw a sharp line between a courtroom identification due exclusively to an earlier lineup and a courtroom identification due to memory not based on the lineup? What kind of "clear and convincing evidence...