Kimmelman v. Morrison
United States Supreme Court
477 U.S. 365 (1986)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Morrison (defendant) was convicted of rape. He appealed on the grounds that his attorney’s assistance was constitutionally ineffective. Specifically, Morrison stated that his attorney failed to exclude from evidence an inculpating bed sheet that was the product of a violation of Morrison’s Fourth Amendment rights. In response, the state claimed that because Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule claims are not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings under Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), Morrison’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not cognizable either because it was based on the attorney’s failure to utilize the exclusionary rule. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
Concurrence (Powell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
