PASCHALL ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• McMILLAN v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986)
  …tate is to prove in order to convict of murder”). I would put off until next Term any discussion of how mitigating facts should be analyzed under Winship. This issue will be aired when the Court considers Martin v. Ohio, No. 85-6461, cert. granted, 475 U. S. 1119 (1986), in which a defendant challenges Ohio’s requirement that the accused bear the burden of proving a claim of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. For now, it is enough to agree with Justice Stevens that “if a State provides that a s…
• Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1987)
  …llant did not dispute the existence of these elements, but rather sought to justify her actions on grounds she acted in self defense.” 21 Ohio St. 3d, at 94, 488 N. E. 2d, at 168. There was thus no infirmity in her conviction. We granted certiorari, 475 U. S. 1119 (1986), and affirm the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio. In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 364 (1970), declared that the Due Process Clause “protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact [*232] ne…
• Herrington v. Cnty. OF Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …e jury instructions on damages. Nevertheless, we conclude that the $2,500,600 damages award is so grossly excessive that it shocks the conscience. See Gilchrist, 803 F. 2d at 1501; Hollins v. Powell, 773 F. 2d 191, 197 (8th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1119, 106 S.Ct. 1635, 90 L.Ed.2d 181 (1986). We therefore vacate the award and remand the damages issue for a new trial. [*1504] The $2.5 million damages award is grossly excessive because it is well in excess of the value of the property, even with a…