Hurtado v. California
E1213973
UNEXPLORED
Hurtado v. California is an 1884 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not require states to use grand jury indictments in criminal prosecutions.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hurtado v. California canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T16451796 — 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: Hurtado v. California Context triple: [Stanley Matthews, notableWork, Hurtado 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.
Gilbert v. California
Gilbert v. California is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a defendant’s post-indictment lineup identification without counsel present violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
-
C.
Giles v. California
Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.
-
D.
Griffin v. California
Griffin v. California is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that prosecutors and judges may not comment on a criminal defendant’s failure to testify, as this violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
-
E.
Cohen v. California
Cohen v. California is a landmark 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly expanded First Amendment protections for offensive and provocative speech in public settings.
- 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: Hurtado v. California Target entity description: Hurtado v. California is an 1884 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not require states to use grand jury indictments in criminal prosecutions.
-
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.
Gilbert v. California
Gilbert v. California is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a defendant’s post-indictment lineup identification without counsel present violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
-
C.
Giles v. California
Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.
-
D.
Griffin v. California
Griffin v. California is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that prosecutors and judges may not comment on a criminal defendant’s failure to testify, as this violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
-
E.
Cohen v. California
Cohen v. California is a landmark 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly expanded First Amendment protections for offensive and provocative speech in public settings.
- F. None of above. chosen
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.