WILLIAMS

v.

ILLINOIS

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Smith, 251 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 2018)
  …bstantial evidence and thus the CCP aggravator was stricken. Id. at 868. Nevertheless, we ultimately affirmed Smith's convictions and sentence. Id. at 878. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review on June 28, 2011. Smith v. Florida , 564 U.S. 1052, 131 S.Ct. 3087, 180 L.Ed.2d 912 (2011). Smith subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief raising numerous challenges, including a Ring2 challenge, which the postconviction court summarily denied. Smith v. State (Smith II ), 151 So. 3d 1…
• Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (U.S. 2012)
  …t. Id., at 150, 939 N. E. 2d, at 282. Thus, the report was not used to establish its truth, but only “to show the underlying facts and data Lambatos used before rendering an expert opinion.” Id., at 145, 939 N. E. 2d, at 279. We granted certiorari. 564 U. S. 1052 (2011). H-i HH A The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Before Crawford, this Court took the view tha…
• Sackett et vir v. Env't Prot. Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (U.S. 2012)
  …F. 3d 1139 (2010). It concluded that the Act “precluded] pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders,” id., at 1144, and that such preclusion does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, id., at 1147. We granted certiorari. 564 U. S. 1052 (2011). II The Sacketts brought suit under Chapter 7 of the APA, which provides for judicial review of “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 [*126] U. S. C. § 704. We consider first whether the complianc…