Legal Opinion

United States v. Nesmith

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided June 4, 1954No. Cr. 399-54PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

The question presented on this motion is whether it constitutes a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination for the Government to introduce in evidence in a criminal case the chemical analysis of a urine specimen furnished by the defendant in compliance with a request or direction of a law enforcement officer. This subject is of growing importance because of the increasing use of scientific tests in criminal prosecutions.

This case comes before the court on a motion by the defendant to suppress evidence. The defendant has been indicted on a charge of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Rochin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  2. Holt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  3. Haywood v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1920
  4. United States v. KellyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
  5. Smith v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. United States v. RidlingDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1972
  2. Prucha v. Department of Motor VehiclesNebraska Supreme Court · 1961
  3. State v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1956
  4. Mack Daniel and Ab Daniel v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
  5. People v. ConternoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959

15 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