Talk:Adamson v. California

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somebody should mention that this was case was overruled by Griffin v. California.108.192.6.73 (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adamson v. California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221135442/http://www.lawnix.com/cases/adamson-california.html to http://www.lawnix.com/cases/adamson-california.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adamson's input[edit]

The article claims that Adamson did not want to testify on his own behalf, but do we know this is true, especially with a black defendant and a presumably white defense attorney? Lawyers know the pitfalls of a defendant taking the stand - in this case Adamson had a prior criminal history. I only wonder if it is more accurate to say that Adamson's attorney knew why he should not testify and was the impetus for Adamson staying off the stand. Put another way, an attorney does not always represent the defendant or his/her/zer interests. 47.137.182.8 (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]