Misplaced Pages

Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1946): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:17, 10 December 2024 editLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,610 edits Reference edited with ProveIt #proveitTag: ProveIt edit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:27, 10 December 2024 edit undoLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,610 editsNo edit summary 
(3 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><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> '''''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 == == See also ==
Line 40: 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 51: Line 41:
] ]
] ]
]
]

Latest revision as of 19:27, 10 December 2024

1946 United States Supreme Court case
Ashcraft v. Tennessee
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 25, 1946
Full case nameAshcraft v. Tennessee
Citations327 U.S. 274 (more)
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton
Case opinions
MajorityBlack, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceFrankfurter (in judgment)
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 327 U.S. 274 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court 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.

See also

References

  1. Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 327 U.S. 274 (1946).
  2. Bennett, John Ballard (1954). "Decade of Change Since the Ashcraft Case". Tex. L. Rev. 32: 429.

External links

Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

Categories: