Moore v. Illinois
E265810
Moore v. Illinois is a United States Supreme Court decision addressing constitutional criminal procedure issues, particularly concerning the rights of defendants in state prosecutions.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Moore v. Illinois canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2424801 — 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: Moore v. Illinois Context triple: [Jackson v. Georgia, relatedCase, Moore v. Illinois]
-
A.
Escobedo v. Illinois
Escobedo v. Illinois is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations and helped lay the groundwork for the later Miranda warnings.
-
B.
Betts v. Brady
Betts v. Brady was a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held indigent defendants in state criminal cases were not automatically entitled to court-appointed counsel, a rule later overturned by Gideon v. Wainwright.
-
C.
Strickland v. Washington
Strickland v. Washington is a landmark 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the two-pronged test for determining when a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated.
-
D.
Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan v. Louisiana is a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
E.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First 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: Moore v. Illinois Target entity description: Moore v. Illinois is a United States Supreme Court decision addressing constitutional criminal procedure issues, particularly concerning the rights of defendants in state prosecutions.
-
A.
Escobedo v. Illinois
Escobedo v. Illinois is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations and helped lay the groundwork for the later Miranda warnings.
-
B.
Betts v. Brady
Betts v. Brady was a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held indigent defendants in state criminal cases were not automatically entitled to court-appointed counsel, a rule later overturned by Gideon v. Wainwright.
-
C.
Strickland v. Washington
Strickland v. Washington is a landmark 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the two-pronged test for determining when a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated.
-
D.
Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan v. Louisiana is a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
E.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (36)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| appliesTo | state criminal prosecutions ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
United States constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ |
| bindingOn |
lower federal courts in the United States
ⓘ
state courts on federal constitutional questions ⓘ |
| citation | 434 U.S. 220 ⓘ |
| concerns |
constitutional limitations on identification procedures
ⓘ
scope of the right to counsel in pretrial proceedings ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| holding |
A post-indictment lineup or confrontation is a critical stage at which the accused is entitled to counsel
ⓘ
Admission of identification evidence obtained in violation of the right to counsel can be constitutional error ⓘ The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings ⓘ |
| issue |
admissibility of eyewitness identification obtained without counsel present
ⓘ
whether the defendant was denied the assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the prosecution ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal law ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Due Process Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment due process
Sixth Amendment right to counsel ⓘ constitutional criminal procedure ⓘ state criminal prosecutions ⓘ |
| party |
Moore
ⓘ
Illinois ⓘ
surface form:
State of Illinois
|
| petitioner | Moore ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Gilbert v. California
ⓘ
Kirby v. Illinois ⓘ Massiah v. United States ⓘ United States v. Wade ⓘ |
| respondent | Illinois ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | rights of defendants in state prosecutions ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Moore v. Illinois Description of subject: Moore v. Illinois is a United States Supreme Court decision addressing constitutional criminal procedure issues, particularly concerning the rights of defendants in state prosecutions.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.