Cupp v. Naughten
- Decided
- December 4, 1973
- Docket
- 72-1148
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,639 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a similar instruction did not violate the Due Process Clause of the 14 th Amendment — Ben-Yisrayl v. State (2000)
- holding that a similarly instructed jury "remained free to exercise its collective judgment to reject what it did not find trustworthy or plausible" — (untitled) (1993)
- recognizing that the instructions are but one of several components of the trial which may result in the judgment of conviction, including argument of counsel — Williamson v. Reynolds (1995)
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 Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Naughten was tried in an Oregon state court for the crime of armed robbery. The State’s principal evidence consisted of testimony by the owner of the grocery store that respondent had robbed the store at gunpoint and of corroborative testimony by another eyewitness. In addition, two police officers testified that respondent had been found near the scene of the robbery and that the stolen money was located near his car in a neighboring parking lot. A few items of clothing, identified as belonging to respondent, and the stolen money were also introduced. Respondent neither took the stand himself nor called any witnesses to testify in his behalf.
The trial judge charged the jury that respondent was presumed innocent “until guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” and then continued:
Cite this
Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (1973)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.