Nomination of Warren E. Burger: Hearing, Ninety-first Congress, First Session. June 3, 1969, Volume 4
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 appellant application arrest Attorney Baker branch Chairman Chief Justice Circuit Civil claims Committee concern conduct confession confirmation CONGRESS THE LIBRARY consider Constitution counsel course crime criminal decided decisions determination dissenting District Court District of Columbia duty EASTLAND effect evidence exclusion fact Federal Bar Association give ground hearing holding House identification issue JAMES Judge Burger judgment judicial Judiciary Committee June jurisdiction L.Ed lawyers legislative LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 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 statement suggest supra Supreme Court tion trial United vote 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 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 99 - Whatever the testimony of the authorities as to waiver of rights by an accused, the fact of lengthy interrogation or incommunicado incarceration before a statement is made is strong evidence that the accused did not validly waive his rights.
Página 73 - ... an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.
Página 66 - We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.
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 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" can the prosecution offer to prove upon what particular events memories resulting in an in-court identification...
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 108 - If you cannot afford a lawyer and want one, a lawyer will be provided for you. If you want to answer questions now without a lawyer present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer.