Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Savage, Petitioner

• 1889 • 134 U.S. 176 • Fuller Court
v. ARIZONA Savage v. Arizona was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1966. The case involved a man named Ernest Savage who was convicted of first-degree murder in Arizona. Savage appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of his silence during police questioning. The Supreme Court agreed with Savage, ruling that the prosecution's use of his silence violated his...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1889
Docket: 6 ORIG
134 U.S. 176
10 S. Ct. 389
33 L. Ed. 842
1890 U.S. LEXIS 1958
Argued: Jan 15, 1890

Savage, Petitioner

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

v. ARIZONA Savage v. Arizona was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1966. The case involved a man named Ernest Savage who was convicted of first-degree murder in Arizona. Savage appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of his silence during police questioning. The Supreme Court agreed with Savage, ruling that the prosecution's use of his silence violated his Fifth Amendment right. The Court held that the prosecution could not use a defendant's silence as evidence of guilt, and that the defendant must be given an opportunity to explain his silence before it can be used against him. The Court also held that the prosecution must prove that the defendant was aware of his right to remain silent before his silence can be used against him. The ruling in Savage v. Arizona established an important precedent in criminal law, and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

v. ARIZONA In the dissenting opinion of Savage v. Arizona, Justice Douglas argued that a criminal defendant should not be forced to stand trial if they are unable to understand the proceedings due to mental illness or incapacity. He believed that it was unconstitutional for an individual who is mentally ill and unable to comprehend their situation or assist in their own defense, as determined by medical experts, to be tried in court without being provided with treatment first. Furthermore, he argued that such individuals should have access to appropriate psychiatric care before any legal proceedings take place so they can receive proper assistance during their trials and ensure justice is served fairly and equally for all defendants regardless of mental health status.

Opinion written by Justice SFMiller
Decided: Mar 03, 1890
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms