Bram v. United States
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Courts still use Bram's broader rule against coerced confessions. Iowa and Massachusetts made separate choices for their own law, noted below.
37 later cases cite Bram v. United States; 37 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Bram v. United States?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
The Supreme Court held that Bram's categorical language about promises no longer states the standard for deciding whether a confession is voluntary.
Arizona v. Fulminante · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Although the Court noted in Bram that a confession cannot be obtained by “‘any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence,’” id., at 542-543 (quoting 3 H. Smith & A. Keep, Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors 478 (6th ed. 1896)), it is clear that this passage from Bram, which under current precedent does not state the standard for determining the voluntariness of a confession, was not relied on by the Arizona court in reaching its conclusion.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The district court rejected the view that Bram automatically excludes every statement induced by a promise, assessing the circumstances of the confession instead.
United States v. Williams · D. Del. · filed
The Court disapproves the contention that Bram imposes an inflexible per se rule condemning any incriminating statement obtained as a result of a promissory inducement.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Missouri Supreme Court treated Bram's language about promises as subject to a test of whether police overbore the defendant's will.
State v. Harvey · Supreme Court of Missouri · filed
As pointed out in United States v. Ferrara, 377 F.2d 16, 17 (2d Cir.1967), the Bram statement relied upon by appellant has not been applied with “wooden literalness.” The test is whether or not the defendant’s will was overborne by the law enforcement officers, resulting in a confession or statement, not freely self-determined.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The First Circuit held that Bram's strict promise language had been modified and assessed voluntariness from all the circumstances.
United States v. Jackson · First Circuit · filed
Although Bram has not been overruled, it has been modified. The Congress and the courts have indicated that to determine voluntariness it is necessary to look at the totality of the circumstances, including any promises or threats made by police officers or the prosecution, in order to see whether the will of the accused was overborne.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Bram v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace