Supreme Court· 1/17/1973

Ham v. South Carolina

Citations

409 U.S. 524
93 S. Ct. 848
35 L. Ed. 2d 46
1973 U.S. LEXIS 115

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that voir dire on race was constitutionally required where defendant, a civil rights activist, claimed that he had been framed because of his race
concluding that the defendant’s right to due process was violated by the state court’s refusal to permit questioning about racial bias
concluding that voir dire on racial prejudice was constitutionally required when a black civil rights activist believed he was being framed by law enforcement
holding that inquiry into jurors' attitudes towards race was constitutionally mandated when the accused claimed that he was framed in retaliation for his civil rights activities
recognizing “the traditionally broad discretion accorded to the trial judge in conducting voir dire . . .”
recognizing \the traditionally broad discretion accorded to the trial judge in conducting voir dire . . .\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rehnquist, Burgek, Brennan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, Douglas, Marshall

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

428 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Ham v. South Carolina

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.