ASHFORD
v.
ILLINOIS; STEWART V. ILLINOIS; EMERSON V. ILLINOIS; ORANGE V. ILLINOIS; GREEN V. NORTH CAROLINA; HENDRICKS V. CALIFORNIA; HAWKINS V. LYNAUGH, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LANDRY V. LYNAUGH, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BARBER V. TENNESSEE; PARKUS V. MISSOURI; WADE V. CALIFORNIA; WILLIAMS V. CALIFORNIA; ROJEM V. OKLAHOMA; MERCER V. ARMONTROUT, WARDEN; COLEMAN V. OHIO
ASHFORD
ILLINOIS; STEWART V. ILLINOIS; EMERSON V. ILLINOIS; ORANGE V. ILLINOIS; GREEN V. NORTH CAROLINA; HENDRICKS V. CALIFORNIA; HAWKINS V. LYNAUGH, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LANDRY V. LYNAUGH, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BARBER V. TENNESSEE; PARKUS V. MISSOURI; WADE V. CALIFORNIA; WILLIAMS V. CALIFORNIA; ROJEM V. OKLAHOMA; MERCER V. ARMONTROUT, WARDEN; COLEMAN V. OHIO
488 U.S. 900
Supreme Court of the United States (1988)
Caution
Cited by 32 cases
Dissent
Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 (U.S. 1990)…en unreasonable in concluding that the instructions do not violate the rule of Lockett and Eddings. See Byrne v. Butler, 847 F. 2d 1135, 1138-1140 (CA5 1988); People v. Emerson, 122 Ill. 2d 411, 442-443, 522 N. E. 2d 1109, 1122 (1987), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 900 (1988); State v. Ramseur, 106 N. J. 123, 295- [*491] 299, 524 A. 2d 188, 275-277 (1987); State v. Steffen, 31 Ohio St. 3d 111, 125, 509 N. E. 2d 383, 396 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 916 (1988); State v. Owens, 293 S. C. 161, 169, 359 S. E. 2d 27…
-
Smith v. Black, 904 F.2d 950 (5th Cir. 1990)…the prosecution must have knowingly used the testimony to obtain a conviction. See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 110, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 341-42, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935) (per curiam); Hawkins v. Lynaugh, 844 F. 2d 1132, 1141 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 900, 109 S.Ct. 247, 102 L.Ed.2d 236 (1988); Braxton v. Estelle, 641 F. 2d 392, 395 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981); Skipper v. Wainwright, 598 F. 2d 425, 427 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 974, 100 S.Ct. 469, 62 L.Ed.2d 389 (1979). Smith’s argu…1 / 2
-
Robert v. Black, Jr., 962 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1992)…r, the prosecution must have knowingly used the testimony to obtain a conviction. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 110, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 341, 342, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935) (per curiam); Hawkins v. Lynaugh, 844 F. 2d 1132, 1141 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 900, 109 S.Ct. 247, 102 L.Ed.2d 236 (1988).” Smith, 904 F. 2d at 961 (additional citations omitted). Black has not suggested that the prosecution knew Deckard’s testimony was false. Accordingly, this claim must fail. H. Interference of the Texas Capita…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1976)