Nix v. Williams
Significance, Supreme Court Approves Inevitable Discovery Exception, Dissenters Feel Exclusionary Rule Is Undermined, Exclusionary Rule Offends Law And Order Supporters
Robert Anthony Williams
That evidence pertaining to the discovery of a body was properly admitted because it would have ultimately been discovered, even if the defendant's right to counsel had not been violated. Also that the state need not prove the absence of bad faith in securing the evidence.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Brent R. Appel
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Harry A. Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall
Date of Decision
11 June 1984
Reversed the court of appeals and held that unlawfully obtained evidence is admissible if it would inevitably have been discovered lawfully. Also held that to establish the admissibility of such evidence, the prosecution does not have to prove the absence of bad faith.
- Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959).
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
- Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977).
- Irons, Peter. Brennan vs. Rehnquist: The Battle for the Constitution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.
- Schwartz, Herman, ed. The Burger Years: Rights and Wrongs in the Supreme Court, 1969-1986. New York: Viking, 1987.
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald - Significance, The Lower Court Decisions, The Court's Decision, The President Above The Law?
- Nix v. Whiteside - Significance, Overview, Whiteside's Crime And Defense, A Unanimous Decision, Federal District Court
- Nix v. Williams - Significance
- Nix v. Williams - Supreme Court Approves Inevitable Discovery Exception
- Nix v. Williams - Dissenters Feel Exclusionary Rule Is Undermined
- Nix v. Williams - Exclusionary Rule Offends Law And Order Supporters
- Other Free Encyclopedias