WILLIAMS

v.

MISSISSIPPI

Citator

Cited By

• Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Tr., 487 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1988)
  …ave sometimes looked for more specific direction in the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR pt. 1607 (1987). See, e. g., Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Comm’n, 733 F. 2d 220, 225-226 (CA2 1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1117 (1985); Firefighters Institute v. St. Louis, 616 F. 2d 350, 356-357 (CA8 1980), cert. denied sub nom. St. Louis v. United States, 452 U. S. 938 (1981). These Guidelines have adopted an enforcement rule under which adverse impact will not ordinaril…
• Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1990)
  …jury’s finding of aggravating circumstances involves “nothing more than the familiar test we apply when a defendant argues here that the trial judge should have entered a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict of the jury”), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1117 (1985).16 As noted earlier, the Mississippi Supreme Court never has held that the evidence failed to support a jury’s finding that a particular murder was “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.” The court is required to undertake a proportionalit…
• Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376 (U.S. 1986)
  …Under [*405] Mississippi law, “the jury is the sole player in the judicial process who may vote to send an accused to die.” Wiley v. State, 449 So. 2d 756, 762 (Miss. 1984); see also Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 798, 811 (Miss. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1117 (1985). To the extent that Enmund places a substantive limitation on sentencing, then, Bullock is entitled to insist that the sentencing jury heed its limits. Caldwell suggests that to postpone Bullock’s right to an Enmund determination is effective…