CRAMPTON

v.

OHIO

Citator

Cited By

• Herman v. State, 396 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
  …We have also upheld the exclusion of a prospective juror who said that he “wouldn’t know” if he could find the defendant guilty where it might result in capital punishment. Williams v. State, 228 So. 2d 377, 381 (Fla.1969), vacated on other grounds, 408 U.S. 941, 92 S.Ct. 2864, 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972). 381 So. 2d at 694. The appellant also objected to any questions to jurors concerning the death penalty because section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1977) provides for the possibility of empanelling a separate a…
• Smith v. Balkcom, 660 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …in favor of the accused.15 The state as well as the accused enjoys a right to an impartial jury. See Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 70-71, 7 S.Ct. 350, 351, 30 L.Ed. 578 (1887); Williams v. Wainwright, 427 F. 2d 921, 923 (5th Cir. 1970), modified, 408 U.S. 941, 92 S.Ct. 2864, 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972). Such a tilt of the scales of justice would violate that right. As recognized in Spinkellink, the danger of a defendant prone jury is too great to accede to Smith’s claim. The state has decided that the parties…
• United States v. Foster, 783 F.2d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
  …in decisions subsequent to Cephus, as adhering to the waiver rule 1 — as is the Supreme Court in post-Cephus dicta approving it, see McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 215-16, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 1471, 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971), vacated on other grounds, 408 U.S. 941, 92 S.Ct. 2873, 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972). The American Bar Association’s Standards for Criminal Justice adhere to the traditional rule, with commentary that specifically considers and rejects the Cephus position. Standards for Criminal Justice § 15-3…