Brewer v. Williams
1977 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Brewer v. Williams?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "waiver" of the right to counsel for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Under Miranda v. Arizona, evidence obtained by police during interrogation of a suspect before he has been read his Miranda rights is inadmissible.[1] Here, however, the defendant had been indicted in court and had asserted his desire to have counsel, thus his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached. At issue was whether a voluntary admission of incriminating facts in response to police statements made while the defendant was in custody and outside the presence of his lawyer constituted a waiver of this right to counsel.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2011) |
Brewer v. Williams | |
---|---|
Argued October 4, 1976 Decided March 23, 1977 | |
Full case name | Lou V. Brewer, Warden v. Robert Anthony Williams, a/k/a Anthony Erthel Williams |
Docket no. | 74-1263 |
Citations | 430 U.S. 387 (more) 97 S. Ct. 1232; 51 L. Ed. 2d 424 |
Case history | |
Prior | Williams v. Brewer, 509 F.2d 227 (8th Cir. 1975) |
Subsequent | See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). |
Holding | |
Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected either to express questioning or to its "functional equivalent." | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Stewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Stevens |
Concurrence | Marshall |
Concurrence | Powell |
Concurrence | Stevens |
Dissent | Burger |
Dissent | White, joined by Blackmun, Rehnquist |
Dissent | Blackmun, joined by White, Rehnquist |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. VI |