An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the use of a confession obtained through rigorous interrogation methods by Law Enforcement violates the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, a defendant was subjected to rigorous interrogation methods, including being forced to sleep on the floor, resulting in a confession to having committed murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the confession was involuntary and reversed his conviction. Thurgood Marshall represented the defendant, Robert A. Watts, in Watts v. Indiana.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the use of a confession obtained through rigorous interrogation methods by Law Enforcement violates the Fourteenth Amendment. In his concurrence/dissent, Justice Robert Jackson famously opined, "To bring in a lawyer means a real peril to solution of the crime because, under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client—guilty or innocent—and that, in such a capacity, he owes no duty whatever to help society solve its crime problem. Under this conception of criminal procedure, any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." In this case, a defendant was subjected to rigorous interrogation methods, including being forced to sleep on the floor, resulting in a confession to having committed murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the confession was involuntary and reversed his conviction. Thurgood Marshall represented the defendant, Robert A. Watts, in Watts v. Indiana. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 28072968 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 3464 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1095749960 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-04-25 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear
  • 1949 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Watts v. Indiana, (en)
dbp:concurrence
  • Douglas (en)
  • Black (en)
dbp:concurrence/dissent
  • Jackson (en)
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-06-27 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 1949 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Vinson, Reed, Burton (en)
dbp:fullname
  • Watts v. Indiana (en)
dbp:holding
  • The use of a confession obtained through rigorous interrogation methods by Law Enforcement violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which says: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." (en)
dbp:joinmajority
  • Murphy, Rutledge (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:litigants
  • Watts v. Indiana (en)
dbp:loc
dbp:majority
  • Frankfurter (en)
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 69 (xsd:integer)
dbp:uspage
  • 49 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 338 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the use of a confession obtained through rigorous interrogation methods by Law Enforcement violates the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, a defendant was subjected to rigorous interrogation methods, including being forced to sleep on the floor, resulting in a confession to having committed murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the confession was involuntary and reversed his conviction. Thurgood Marshall represented the defendant, Robert A. Watts, in Watts v. Indiana. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Watts v. Indiana (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Watts v. Indiana (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License