Jackson v. Denno
- Decided
- June 22, 1964
- Docket
- 62
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,121 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a defendant is entitled to a fair determination of the voluntariness of his confession outside the presence of the jury — Martinez v. State (2002)
- holding that trial judge must determine, at a separate hearing, that a confession is voluntary before it may be heard by a jury — Carl J. Isaacs v. Frederick J. Head (2002)
- holding that defendant is entitled to a hearing on the issue of voluntariness of a confession — Samuel Christopher Hawkins v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (1988)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, Jackson, has filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Federal District Court asserting that his conviction for murder'ln the New York courts is invalid because it was founded upon a confession not properly [*370] determined to be voluntary. The writ was denied, 206 F. Supp. 759 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.), the Court of Appeals affirmed, 309 F. 2d 573 (C. A. 2d Cir.), and we granted certiorari to consider fundamental questions about the constitutionality of the New York procedure governing the admissibility of a confession alleged to be involuntary.[1] 371 U. S. 967.
I.
Cite this
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.