Legal Opinion

In Re Fried

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 23, 1947No. 168, Docket 20466PublishedCited by 126 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

1. Substantial testimony, the credibility of which was, of course, for the district judge to determine, sustains his conclusion that such authorized voluntary consent was given to the searches as to validate them and the seizures. :

2. The district judge refused to consider any evidence whatever concerning the confessions. He ruled, in effect, as follows: Even if government officers were to use the most brutal, coercive methods in obtaining a man’s confession to the commission of a crime, a district court would be powerless to prevent the government from presenting that…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. McNabb v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  3. Lisenba v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Burdeau v. McDowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  5. Cobbledick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by126 opinions

  1. United States v. JeffersSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. DiBella v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. United States v. Ernest T. PageCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
  4. United States v. Philip Vita and Jerald CarmelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
  5. Skidmore v. Baltimore & OR Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948

121 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API