The Oyez Project: 1965 Term Decisions

Accardi v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (No. 280)

What threshold must be crossed before a trial is said to be so prejudicial, due to context and publicity, as to interfere with a defendant's Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair trial?

In an 8-to-1 decision the Court found that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. Noting that although freedom of expression should be given great latitude, the Court held that it must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from its primary purpose: adjudicating both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting. The Cleveland television media's repeated broadcasts of Sheppard confessing in detail to crimes he was later charged with, the blatant and hostile trial coverage by Cleveland's radio and print media, and the physical arrangement of the courtroom itself - which facilitated collaboration between the prosecution and present media - all combined to so inflame the jurors' minds against Sheppard as to deny him a fair trial. The Court concluded that the trial judge should have either postponed the proceedings or transferred them to a different venue.

Albertson v. Sacb (No. 3)

No details yet.

Amell v. United States (No. 282)

No details yet.

Ashton v. Kentucky (No. 619)

No details yet.

Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp. (No. 387)

Did the blood test violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination?

No. Justice Brennan argued for a unanimous Court that the protection against self-incrimination applied specifically to compelled communications or testimony. Since the results of the blood test were neither "testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds."

Auto Workers v. Scofield (No. 18)

No details yet.

Baxstrom v. Herold (No. 219)

No details yet.

Brenner v. Manson (No. 58)

No details yet.

Brookhart v. Janis (No. 657)

No details yet.

Brown v. Louisiana (No. 41)

Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." The Court noted that "the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition." The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.

Burns v. Richardson (No. 318)

No details yet.

California v. Buzard (No. 40)

No details yet.

Cardona v. Power (No. 673)

No details yet.

Carnation Co. v. Pacific Conference (No. 20)

No details yet.

Cheff v. Schnackenberg (No. 67)

No details yet.

Collier v. United States (No. 695)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. Tellier (No. 351)

No details yet.

Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n (No. 63)

No details yet.

Davis v. North Carolina (No. 815)

No details yet.

Degregory v. New Hamp. Atty. Gen. (No. 396)

No details yet.

Dennis v. United States (No. 502)

No details yet.

Elfbrandt v. Russell (No. 656)

No details yet.

Engineers v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (No. 69)

No details yet.

Evans v. Newton (No. 61)

No details yet.

Fribourg Nav. Co. v. Commissioner (No. 23)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Borden Co. (No. 106)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Brown Shoe Co. (No. 118)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Dean Foods Co. (No. 970)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Mary Carter Paint Co. (No. 15)

Did the Act violate the states' rights to implement and control elections?

The Court upheld the law. Noting that the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment gave Congress "full remedial powers" to prevent racial discrimination in voting, the Act was a "legitimate response" to the "insidious and pervasive evil" which had denied blacks the right to vote since the Fifteenth Amendment's adoption in 1870.

Georgia v. Rachel (No. 147)

No details yet.

Giaccio v. Pennsylvania (No. 47)

No details yet.

Ginzburg v. United States (No. 42)

No details yet.

Gojack v. United States (No. 594)

No details yet.

Graham v. John Deere Co. (No. 11)

No details yet.

Greenwood v. Peacock (No. 471)

No details yet.

Gunther v. San Diego & A. E. R. Co. (No. 27)

No details yet.

Hanna Mining v. Marine Engineers (No. 7)

No details yet.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (No. 48)

No details yet.

Harris v. United States (No. 6)

No details yet.

Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner (No. 57)

No details yet.

Hicks v. District Of Columbia (No. 51)

No details yet.

Holt v. Alleghany Corp. (No. 131)

No details yet.

Icc v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (No. 14)

No details yet.

Idaho Metal Works v. Wirtz (No. 30)

No details yet.

Johnson v. New Jersey (No. 762)

No details yet.

Katchen v. Landy (No. 28)

No details yet.

Katzenbach v. Morgan (No. 847)

No details yet.

Kent v. United States (No. 104)

No details yet.

Leh v. General Petroleum Corp. (No. 4)

No details yet.

Linn v. Plant Guard Workers (No. 45)

No details yet.

Lomenzo v. Wmca, Inc. (No. 81)

No details yet.

Louisiana v. Mississippi (No. 14 ORIG)

No details yet.

Malat v. Riddell (No. 487)

No details yet.

Memoirs v. Massachusetts (No. 368)

No details yet.

Mills v. Alabama (No. 597)

No details yet.

Mine Workers v. Gibbs (No. 243)

No details yet.

Miranda v. Arizona (No. 759)

No details yet.

Mishkin v. New York (No. 49)

No details yet.

NAACP v. Overstreet (No. 505)

No details yet.

Nicholas v. United States (No. 650)

No details yet.

Pate v. Robinson (No. 382)

No details yet.

Perry v. Commerce Loan Co. (No. 694)

No details yet.

Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez (No. 692)

No details yet.

Railway Clerks v. Florida E. C. R. Co. (No. 750)

No details yet.

Rinaldi v. Yeager (No. 940)

No details yet.

Rogers v. Paul (No. 532)

No details yet.

Rosenblatt v. Baer (No. 38)

No details yet.

Schmerber v. California (No. 658)

No details yet.

Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter (No. 545)

No details yet.

SEC v. New England Electric (No. 636)

No details yet.

Segal v. Rochelle (No. 44)

No details yet.

Sheppard v. Maxwell (No. 490)

No details yet.

Shillitani v. United States (No. 412)

No details yet.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (No. 5)

No details yet.

Snapp v. Neal (No. 16)

No details yet.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (No. 22 ORIG)

No details yet.

Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc. (No. 19)

No details yet.

Stevens v. Marks (No. 210)

No details yet.

Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp. (No. 161)

No details yet.

Swift & Co. v. Wickham (No. 9)

No details yet.

Tehan v. Shott (No. 52)

No details yet.

Time Inc. v. Hill (No. 22)

No details yet.

United Gas v. Callery Properties (No. 21)

No details yet.

United States v. Adams (No. 55)

No details yet.

United States v. Blue (No. 531)

No details yet.

United States v. Catto (No. 535)

No details yet.

United States v. Cook (No. 256)

No details yet.

United States v. Equitable Life (No. 645)

No details yet.

United States v. Ewell (No. 29)

No details yet.

United States v. General Motors (No. 46)

No details yet.

United States v. Grace & Sons (No. 439)

No details yet.

United States v. Grinnell Corp. (No. 73)

No details yet.

United States v. Guest (No. 65)

No details yet.

United States v. Huck Manufacturing Co. (No. 8)

No details yet.

United States v. Johnson (No. 25)

No details yet.

United States v. O'malley (No. 127)

No details yet.

United States v. Pabst Brewing Co. (No. 404)

No details yet.

United States v. Price (No. 59)

No details yet.

United States v. Romano (No. 2)

No details yet.

United States v. Speers (No. 17)

No details yet.

United States v. Standard Oil Co. (No. 291)

No details yet.

United States v. Utah Constr. Co. (No. 440)

No details yet.

United States v. Von's Grocery Co. (No. 303)

No details yet.

United States v. Yazell (No. 10)

No details yet.

Walker, Inc. v. Food Machinery (No. 13)

No details yet.

Wallis v. Pan American Pet. Corp. (No. 341)

No details yet.

Western Pac. R. Co. v. United States (No. 12)

No details yet.