Legal Opinion

People v. Hamilton

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 11, 1960No. Docket 67, Calendar 47,840PublishedCited by 105 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.

“The aim of the requirement of due process is not to exclude presumptively false evidence, but to prevent fundamental unfairness in the use of evidence whether true or false.” Lisenba v. California, 314 US 219, 236 (62 S Ct 280, 86 L ed 166), quoted in Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 US 199 (80 S Ct 274, 280, 4 L ed 2d 242, 248).

I hold that admission in evidence of defendant Hamilton’s confession deprived him of process due by our Constitution (1908) and criminal code * §, to say nothing of the process that is due by supreme law.

Maurice ■ Hamilton and Victoria Hirmiz were charged in the first…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. McNabb v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Lisenba v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. Mallory v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Spano v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. Blackburn v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1960

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

3Cited by105 opinions

  1. Culombe v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. People v. RobinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
  3. People v. CiprianoMichigan Supreme Court · 1988
  4. People v. SinclairMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
  5. People v. HarperMichigan Supreme Court · 1962

100 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