Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Orozco v. Texas — Opinion of the Court

The trial testimony clearly shows that the officers questioned petitioner about incriminating facts without first informing him of his right to remain silent, his right to have the advice of a lawyer before making any statement, and his right to have a lawyer appointed to assist him if he could not afford to hire one. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held, with one judge dissenting, that the admission of testimony concerning the statements petitioner had made without the above warnings was not precluded by Miranda.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Orozco v. Texas — Opinion of the Court

The evidence introduced at trial showed that petitioner and the deceased had quarreled outside the El Farleto Cafe in Dallas shortly before midnight on the date of the shooting. The deceased had apparently spoken to petitioner's female companion inside the restaurant. In the heat of the quarrel outside, the deceased is said to have beaten petitioner about the face and called him 'Mexican Grease.' A shot was fired killing the deceased. Petitioner left the scene and returned to his boardinghouse to sleep.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Orozco v. Texas — Opinion of the Court

State of Arizona,' 428 S.W.2d 666, 672, while the dissenting judge thought that it was.↑ In light of some apparent misunderstanding on this point, it is perhaps appropriate to point out once again that a reversal by this Court of a conviction based in part on unconstitutional evidence leaves the State free to retry the defendant without the tainted evidence.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature