| Revision as of 19:10, 10 December 2024 editLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,610 edits ←Created page with '{{subst:SCOTUS-case|Ashcraft v. Tennessee|327|274|February 25|1946|Admitting narrative testimony about the interrogation that elicited an excluded confession can be considered equivalent to the excluded confession, requiring it to also be excluded.}}' |
Latest revision as of 19:27, 10 December 2024 edit undoLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,610 editsNo edit summary |
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
|Subsequent= |
|
|Subsequent= |
|
|Holding=Admitting narrative testimony about the interrogation that elicited an excluded confession can be considered equivalent to the excluded confession, requiring it to also be excluded. |
|
|Holding=Admitting narrative testimony about the interrogation that elicited an excluded confession can be considered equivalent to the excluded confession, requiring it to also be excluded. |
|
|Majority= |
|
|Majority=Black |
|
|JoinMajority= |
|
|JoinMajority=''unanimous'' |
|
|Concurrence= |
|
|Concurrence=Frankfurter (in judgment) |
|
⚫ |
|NotParticipating=Jackson |
|
|JoinConcurrence= |
|
|
|Concurrence2= |
|
|
|JoinConcurrence2= |
|
|
|Concurrence/Dissent= |
|
|
|JoinConcurrence/Dissent= |
|
|
|Dissent= |
|
|
|JoinDissent= |
|
|
|Dissent2= |
|
|
|JoinDissent2= |
|
|
|PerCuriam= |
|
| ⚫ |
|NotParticipating= |
|
|
|LawsApplied= |
|
|LawsApplied= |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
'''''Ashcraft v. Tennessee''''', {{ussc|volume=327|page=274|year=1946|el=no}}, was a ] case in which the court held that admitting narrative testimony about the interrogation that elicited an excluded confession can be considered equivalent to the excluded confession, requiring it to also be excluded.<ref name="case">{{ussc|name=Ashcraft v. Tennessee|volume=327|page=274|year=1946}}.</ref> |
|
'''''Ashcraft v. Tennessee''''', {{ussc|volume=327|page=274|year=1946|el=no}}, was a ] case in which the court held that admitting narrative testimony about the interrogation that elicited an excluded ] can be considered equivalent to the excluded confession, requiring it to also be excluded.<ref name="case">''Ashcraft v. Tennessee'', {{ussc|volume=327|page=274|year=1946}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bennett |first=John Ballard |date=1954 |title=Decade of Change Since the Ashcraft Case |journal=Tex. L. Rev. |volume=32 |pages=429}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== See also == |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
== References == |
|
== References == |
| Line 37: |
Line 30: |
|
==External links== |
|
==External links== |
|
* {{caselaw source |
|
* {{caselaw source |
|
| case = {{ussc|name=Ashcraft v. Tennessee|volume=327|page=274|year=1946|el=no}} |
|
| case = ''Ashcraft v. Tennessee'', {{ussc|volume=327|page=274|year=1946|el=no}} |
|
| justia = https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/327/274/case.html |
|
| justia = https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/327/274/case.html |
|
| cornell = https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/327/274 |
|
| cornell = https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/327/274 |
| Line 48: |
Line 41: |
|
] |
|
] |
|
] |
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
Supreme Court of the United States