| dbo:abstract
|
- Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433 (1958), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that limited criminal suspects' constitutional right to counsel before trial, refusing to overturn a subsequent conviction without a showing that the refusal of counsel had a coercive or prejudicial effect. This holding was later overturned by Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 15937 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-04-02 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-06-30 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
| |
| dbp:docket
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- A criminal suspect's confession during pre-trial interrogation may be used as evidence, notwithstanding that he was refused the right to an attorney, when the suspect is well-educated, and when it is not proven that the trial was rendered fundamentally unjust and unfair. (en)
|
| dbp:joindissent
|
- Warren, Black, Brennan (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Frankfurter, Burton, Harlan, Whittaker (en)
|
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
|
- Crooker v. California (en)
|
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:oralargument
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:scotus
| |
| dbp:source
|
- Crooker v. California, 357 US 433 (en)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (en)
|
| dbp:text
|
- The Court speaks of the education of this petitioner and his ability to take care of himself. In an opinion written by Mr. Justice Sutherland the Court said [in Powell v. Alabama] , 'Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law . . . He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.' Mr. Justice Sutherland spoke of the trial itself. But what is true of the trial is true of the preparation for trial and of the period commencing with the arrest of the accused. No matter how well educated, and how well trained in the law an accused may be, he is sorely in need of legal advice once he is arrested for an offense that may exact his life (en)
- To be sure, coercion seems more likely to result from state denial of a specific request for opportunity to engage counsel than it does from state failure to appoint counsel immediately upon arrest. That greater possibility, however, is not decisive. It is negated here by petitioner's age, intelligence, and education. While in law school he had studied criminal law; indeed, when asked to take the lie detector test, he informed the operator that the results of such a test would not be admissible at trial absent a stipulation by the parties. Supplementing that background is the police statement to petitioner well before his confession that he did not have to answer questions. Moreover, the manner of his refusals to answer indicates full awareness of the right to be silent. On this record we are unable to say that petitioner's confession was anything other than voluntary. (en)
- Crooker v. California, 357 U. S. 433, does not compel a contrary result. . . Among the critical circumstances which distinguish that case from this one are that the petitioner there, but not here, was explicitly advised by the police of his constitutional right to remain silent and not to "say anything" in response to the questions, id. at 357 U. S. 437, and that petitioner there, but not here, was a well educated man who had studied criminal law while attending law school for a year . . . In any event, to the extent that Cicenia or Crooker may be inconsistent with the principles announced today, they are not to be regarded as controlling. (en)
|
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433 (1958), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that limited criminal suspects' constitutional right to counsel before trial, refusing to overturn a subsequent conviction without a showing that the refusal of counsel had a coercive or prejudicial effect. This holding was later overturned by Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Crooker v. California (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
