Felix Frankfurter

Name: Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion
Author: Felix Frankfurter

Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion

Summary

“Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion”, is a work by Felix Frankfurter. It explores elements such as the Fourteenth Amendment, jury and due process.

Quotes from Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion (Felix Frankfurter)

Felix Frankfurter, Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion

“ A man who has done one wrong may prove his innocence on a totally different charge. To deny that the jury can be trusted to make such discrimination is to show little confidence in the jury system. The prosecution is frequently compelled to rely on the testimony of shady characters whose credibility is bound to be the chief target of the defense. It is a common practice in criminal trials to draw out of a vulnerable witness' mouth his vulnerability, and then convince the jury that, nevertheless, he is telling the truth in this particular case. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion

“ If the basis of selection is merely that those provisions of the first eight Amendments are incorporated which commend themselves to individual justices as indispensable to the dignity and happiness of a free man, we are thrown back to a merely subjective test. The protection against unreasonable search and seizure might have primacy for one judge, while trial by a jury of twelve for every claim above twenty dollars might appear to another as an ultimate need in a free society. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion

“ Sensible and just-minded men, in important affairs of life, deem it significant that a man remains silent when confronted with serious and responsible evidence against himself which it is within his power to contradict. The notion that to allow jurors to do that which sensible and right-minded men do every day violates the "immutable principles of justice" as conceived by a civilized society is to trivialize the importance of "due process." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion

“ The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has an independent potency, precisely as does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in relation to the Federal Government. It ought not to require argument to reject the notion that due process of law meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth. The Fifth Amendment specifically prohibits prosecution of an "infamous crime" except upon indictment; it forbids double jeopardy; it bars compelling a person to be a witness against himself in any criminal case ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion

“ A construction which gives to due process no independent function, but turns it into a summary of the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights would, as has been noted, tear up by the roots much of the fabric of law in the several States, and would deprive the States of opportunity for reforms in legal process designed for extending the area of freedom. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion

“ Some of these are enduring reflections of experience with human nature, while some express the restricted views of Eighteenth-Century England regarding the best methods for the ascertainment of facts. The notion that the Fourteenth Amendment was a covert way of imposing upon the [p64] States all the rules which it seemed important to Eighteenth Century statesmen to write into the Federal Amendments was rejected by judges who were themselves witnesses of the process by which the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion

“ Decisions of this Court do not have equal intrinsic authority. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion

“ Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, putting upon this Court the duty of applying these standards from time to time, then we have merely arrived at the insight which our predecessors long ago expressed. We are called upon to apply to the difficult issues of our own day the wisdom afforded by the great opinions in this field, such as those in Davidson v. ”

Felix Frankfurter

Summary

Quotes from Adamson v. California — Concurring Opinion (Felix Frankfurter)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature