| dbo:description
|
- 1967 United States Supreme Court case (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-12-07 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-02-20 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
| |
| dbp:docket
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Ruth Elizabeth Chapman and Thomas Leroy Teale v. California (en)
|
| dbp:holding
| |
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Warren, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, White, and Fortas (en)
|
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
|
- Chapman v. California (en)
|
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:oralargument
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:source
|
- 172800.0 (dbd:second)
- Chapman v. California, 385 U.S. at 46 (en)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. at 21 (en)
|
| dbp:text
|
- We have no hesitation in saying that the right of these petitioners not to be punished for exercising their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be silent—expressly created by the Federal Constitution itself—is a federal right which, in the absence of appropriate congressional action, it is our responsibility to protect by fashioning the necessary rule. (en)
- I regard the Court's assumption of what amounts to a general supervisory power over the trial of federal constitutional issues in state courts as a startling constitutional development that is wholly out of keeping with our federal system and completely unsupported by the Fourteenth Amendment where the source of such a power must be found. (en)
- It clearly appears that the error in allowing the comments and in giving the improper instruction could not have resulted in a miscarriage of justice as to the defendant Teale. While he may not have confessed to the crime, nevertheless the admissions which he made to his fellow inmate are so damaging that, when considered with the other substantial evidence, the proof of his guilt must be deemed overwhelming. His statements, of course, were not admissible against the defendant Chapman. Nevertheless the persuasive, circumstantial web of evidence which implicated her was not refuted, and the only real defense which she urged at the trial level was her claimed inability to form a criminal intent, which she sought to establish through expert witnesses. The comments and instruction on her failure to explain away the circumstantial web of evidence become of less significance in view of the defense's complete failure to refute such evidence by any means whatsoever. That evidence, in effect, stands unchallenged and the prosecutor's and court's remarks add little to its stature. (en)
|
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dct:subject
| |
| rdfs:label
|
- Chapman v. California (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is dbp:lawsapplied
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
