Lego v. Twomey

Supreme Court

Lego v. Twomey

401 U.S. 992, 91 S. Ct. 1238

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 29, 1971

DocketNo. 6046

StatusPublished

This text of 401 U.S. 992 (Lego v. Twomey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lego v. Twomey, 401 U.S. 992, 91 S. Ct. 1238 (1971).

Pincite

Opinion

C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 as set forth in the petition, which reads as follows:

“1. Was the Illinois evidentiary rule for determining the voluntariness of extra-judicial confessions so highly unreliable as to contravene the Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights and, necessarily, deprive the Appellant of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because:

“(a) The trial judge in his preliminary determination, removed from the jury, need not find the confession voluntary beyond reasonable doubt when judging its admissibility as evidence for the jury; and,

“(b) The defendant, as a matter of Illinois law, was precluded from having the jury instructed upon, and to determine the voluntariness of the confession along with the other factual issues upon which the jury verdict must rest?”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 as set forth in the petition, which reads as follows:

“1. Was the Illinois evidentiary rule for determining the voluntariness of extra-judicial confessions so highly unreliable as to contravene the Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights and, necessarily, deprive the Appellant of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because:

“(a) The trial judge in his preliminary determination, removed from the jury, need not find the confession voluntary beyond reasonable doubt when judging its admissibility as evidence for the jury; and,

“(b) The defendant, as a matter of Illinois law, was precluded from having the jury instructed upon, and to determine the voluntariness of the confession along with the other factual issues upon which the jury verdict must rest?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 U.S. 992, 91 S. Ct. 1238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lego-v-twomey-scotus-1971.