This HTML5 document contains 71 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n4https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
n21https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/36/
n7https://scholar.google.com/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n20https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n11https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/
n10http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep504/usrep504036/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n16https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112730/united-states-v-williams/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:United_States_v._Williams_(1992)
rdf:type
wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:LegalCase dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:UnitOfWork owl:Thing dbo:Case
rdfs:label
United States v. Williams (1992)
rdfs:comment
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. The opinion was written by Justice Scalia, and the dissent by Justice Stevens.
foaf:name
United States, Petitioner v. John H. Williams, Jr.
dcterms:subject
dbc:1992_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_criminal_procedure_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Rehnquist_Court dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
dbo:wikiPageID
44760178
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1101274876
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Prosecutorial_misconduct dbr:John_Paul_Stevens dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbr:Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Rehnquist_Court dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:L._Ed._2d dbc:United_States_criminal_procedure_case_law dbr:Exculpatory_evidence dbc:1992_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Antonin_Scalia dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n7:scholar_case%3Fcase=15938389737466632088 n16: n10:usrep504036.pdf n21:case.html n11:90-1972 n4:90-1972.ZS.html
owl:sameAs
yago-res:United_States_v._Williams_(1992) freebase:m.012hcpb5 n20:uPEa wikidata:Q19865413
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:! dbt:Other_uses dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Ussc dbt:Reflist dbt:SCOTUS-case-stub
dbp:dissent
Stevens
dbp:joindissent
Blackmun, O'Connor; Thomas
dbp:joinmajority
Rehnquist, White, Kennedy, Souter
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
dbp:oyez
n11:90-1972
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:uspage
36
dbp:usvol
504
dbp:arguedate
0001-01-22
dbp:argueyear
1992
dbp:case
United States v. Williams,
dbp:courtlistener
n16:
dbp:decidedate
0001-05-04
dbp:decideyear
1992
dbp:fullname
United States, Petitioner v. John H. Williams, Jr.
dbp:holding
A district court may not dismiss an otherwise valid indictment because the Government failed to disclose to the grand jury "substantial exculpatory evidence" in its possession.
dbp:justia
n21:case.html
dbp:litigants
United States v. Williams
dbp:majority
Scalia
dbp:loc
n10:usrep504036.pdf
dbo:abstract
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. The opinion was written by Justice Scalia, and the dissent by Justice Stevens. The question addressed by the court was whether a district court may properly dismiss an indictment when the prosecutor withheld “substantial exculpatory evidence” that could lead the grand jury to reject the indictment but does not necessarily rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct, which would require the dismissal of an indictment. The significance of the ruling lies not only in its definition of the duty of the prosecutor in regard to presenting exculpatory evidence before the grand jury but also in its definition of the grand jury's accusatory role. The ruling protects prosecutors who withhold "substantial exculpatory evidence" to obtain an indictment, as the role of the grand jury is not to determine guilt but to decide whether there is enough evidence of a crime; exculpatory evidence can be presented at trial. Justice Stevens's dissent focused on the argument that a prosecutor's failure to present substantially-exculpatory evidence is a form of prosecutorial misconduct, but that nevertheless, the prosecutor need not "ferret out and present all evidence that could be used at trial to create a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt."
dbp:cornell
n4:90-1972.ZS.html
dbp:googlescholar
n7:scholar_case%3Fcase=15938389737466632088
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:United_States_v._Williams_(1992)?oldid=1101274876&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
4060
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:United_States_v._Williams_(1992)