Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Tenn. Crim. App. 335

Maxwell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · decided 1969-04-22

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1990

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1969-04-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GALBREATH, Judge

¶1(dissenting).

¶2I dissent. It must be obvious that the subterfuge of substituting the letters “A” and “B” for the names of the co-defendants Stokes and Maxwell in the confession obtained from Newmon was not only ineffectual in keeping the identity of these two co-defendants from the jury but served to accentuate the guilty implications contained in Newmon’s confession.

¶3There should have been a severance granted in the trial of these causes to insure fair trials for all.

/1/tenncrimapp/335 · .json · Public domain