Adamson v. California

E572466

U.S. Supreme Court case criminal procedure case

Adamson v. California is a 1947 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refused to apply the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, later undermined by incorporation-era rulings.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
Adamson v. California canonical	3
Adamson v. People of the State of California	1
dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6165810 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Adamson v. California
Context triple: [Malloy v. Hogan, limitedOrRejectedPrecedent, Adamson v. California]

A. Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
B. Edwards v. California
Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
C. Whitney v. California
Whitney v. California was a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism law and became historically significant for Justice Brandeis’s influential concurrence on free speech before later being overruled.
D. Miller v. California
Miller v. California is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal test for obscenity and allowed greater regulation of pornographic materials.
E. Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Adamson v. California
Target entity description: Adamson v. California is a 1947 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refused to apply the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, later undermined by incorporation-era rulings.

A. Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
B. Edwards v. California
Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
C. Whitney v. California
Whitney v. California was a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism law and became historically significant for Justice Brandeis’s influential concurrence on free speech before later being overruled.
D. Miller v. California
Miller v. California is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal test for obscenity and allowed greater regulation of pornographic materials.
E. Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (49)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	constitutional law ⓘ criminal law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ
arguedDate	1947-01-15 ⓘ
citation	332 U.S. 46 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Justice Felix Frankfurter ⓘ linked to: Felix Frankfurter Justice Stanley F. Reed ⓘ linked to: Justice Stanley Reed
constitutionalProvision	Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ linked to: Fourteenth Amendment
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
criminalChargeContext	murder conviction in California state court ⓘ
decisionDate	1947-06-23 ⓘ
dissentBy	Justice Frank Murphy ⓘ Justice Hugo L. Black ⓘ linked to: Hugo L. Black Justice Wiley B. Rutledge ⓘ Justice William O. Douglas ⓘ linked to: William O. Douglas
doctrine	selective incorporation ⓘ
factPatternElement	prosecutor commented on defendant’s failure to testify ⓘ
fullName	Adamson v. People of the State of California ⓘ linked to: Adamson v. California
holding	The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause ⓘ
interpretiveApproachDiscussed	selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights ⓘ total incorporation of the Bill of Rights ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
legalIssue	application of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the states ⓘ scope of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
majorityJustices	Felix Frankfurter ⓘ Fred M. Vinson ⓘ linked to: Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson Harold H. Burton ⓘ Hugo L. Black ⓘ Robert H. Jackson ⓘ Stanley F. Reed ⓘ linked to: Stanley Reed
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Stanley F. Reed ⓘ linked to: Justice Stanley Reed
notableFeature	Justice Black’s dissent advocated total incorporation of the first eight amendments via the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
overruledInPracticeBy	Griffin v. California ⓘ Malloy v. Hogan ⓘ
page	46 ⓘ
petitioner	Luther Adamson ⓘ
precedentStatus	later undermined by incorporation-era decisions ⓘ
relatedCase	Duncan v. Louisiana ⓘ Griffin v. California ⓘ Malloy v. Hogan ⓘ Palko v. Connecticut ⓘ
resultForPetitioner	conviction affirmed ⓘ
stateParty	California ⓘ linked to: California, United States
volume	332 U.S. ⓘ
vote	5-4 ⓘ
yearDecided	1947 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (5)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Malloy v. Hogan → limitedOrRejectedPrecedent → Adamson v. California ⓘ

United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court → notableCase → Adamson v. California ⓘ

Vinson Court → notableDecision → Adamson v. California ⓘ

Adamson v. California → fullName → Adamson v. People of the State of California ⓘ

linked to: Adamson v. California

Wiley Blount Rutledge Jr. → notableWork → dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California ⓘ