JUREK
v.
ESTELLE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for a Texas death row inmate pending his petition for certiorari review, but Justice Marshall dissented from the expedited briefing schedule, arguing that the compressed timeline was inappropriate when a person's life hung in the balance.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Mr. Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending filing of a petition for writ of certiorari on or before the close of business, February 16, 1977. In the event a petition for writ of certiorari is so filed, this order is to remain in effect pending this Court’s action on the petition. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this order is to terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this order is to remain in effect pending issuance of mandate of this Court. The State of Texas is to file its response to petition for writ of certiorari on or before the close of business March 3, 1977.
Mr. Justice Marshall:
While I agree that a stay should issue, I cannot comprehend — and emphatically dissent from — the Court’s decision to compel petitioner to prepare his petition for certiorari (and the State to prepare its response) on an expedited basis. When human life is at stake, such haste is as unseemly as it is inappropriate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Emory Eugene Cornog, 945 F.2d 1504 (11th Cir. 1991)…d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.1978); Moss v. Patterson, 555 F. 2d 137, 138-39 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 873, 98 S.Ct. 221, 54 L.Ed.2d 153 (1977); Shepard v. United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F. 2d 322, 326-27 (2d Cir.1976), vacated on other grounds, 429 U.S. 1057, 97 S.Ct. 779, 50 L.Ed.2d 773 (1977); see also Witzke v. Withrow, 702 F.Supp. 1338, 1351-54 (W.D.Mich.1988). There is, however, one situation in which the relevant facts are uncontested and there is no possibility of mitigation: when ■ the parole b…
-
Pickens v. Butler, 814 F.2d 237 (5th Cir. 1987)…978); Moss v. Patterson, 555 F. 2d 137 (6th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom, Kette v. Moss, 434 U.S. 873, 98 S.Ct. 221, 54 L.Ed.2d 153 (1977). See also Shepard v. United States Board of Parole, 541 F. 2d 322, 324 (2d Cir.1976), vacated on other grounds, 429 U.S. 1057, 97 S.Ct. 779, 50 L.Ed.2d 773 (1977). But, in Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985), the Supreme Court made it clear that Morrissey did not consider the hearing requirements of “a revocation proceeding in which the fa…
-
Heinz v. Harlan McNUTT, 582 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1978)…uant to R.C.W. § 9.95.170 (1978): . Shepard was vacated and remanded for consideration in light of Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976), presumably to determine whether Moody had rendered moot the timely hearing issue. 429 U.S. 1057, 97 S.Ct. 779, 50 L.Ed.2d 773 (1977). On remand, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the district court as moot. 554 F. 2d 64 (2nd Cir. 1977). . Procedurally, sentencing at a criminal trial does not include all the safeguards req…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence