Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee
Significance, The Constitution Bars Coerced Confessions, Supervisory Power, Impact
State of Tennessee
That the confessions used to convict the defendants were extorted from them by state law enforcement officers in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
James F. Bickers
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Stanley Forman Reed, Wiley Blount Rutledge, Harlan Fiske Stone
Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Owen Josephus Roberts
Date of Decision
1 May 1944
Reversed Ashcraft's conviction and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Tennessee because if Ashcraft made a confession, it was compelled in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
- Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940).
- Lisbena v. California, 314 U.S. 219 (1941).
- McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943).
- Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee, 327 U.S. 274 (1946).
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford Press, 1992.
- Bercovici v. Chaplin: 1947 - "the Little Tramp" Plays To A Full House, Plaintiff Claims Oral Agreement, Suggestions For Further Reading
- Appendix to Appellants' Briefs - In The Supreme Court Of The United States October Term, 1952, Appendix To Appellants' Briefsthe Effects Of Segregation And The Consequences Of Desegregation: A Social Science Statementstatement Of Counsel
- Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee - Significance
- Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee - The Constitution Bars Coerced Confessions
- Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee - Supervisory Power
- Ashcraft v. State of Tennessee - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias