Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Alford v. Arizona, 1966 — 384 U.S. 1028 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Alford v. Arizona
384 U.S. 1028·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the petition for rehearing, vacate the order denying the petition for a writ of certiorari and grant the petition for writ of certiorari. He would vacate the judgment below and remand the case for reconsideration in light of Miranda v. Arizona, ante, p. 436, it being impossible to say on the record whether the principles announced in that ease have been violated.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 481,
Misc.
Alford v. Arizona,
[MAJORITY]
382 U. S. 1020. Rehearing denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the petition for rehearing, vacate the order denying the petition for a writ of certiorari and grant the petition for writ of certiorari. He would vacate the judgment below and remand the case for reconsideration in light of Miranda v. Arizona, ante, p. 436, it being impossible to say on the record whether the principles announced in that ease have been violated.