Citation network
Spencer Vs. Texas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 23, 1967
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 554 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
U.S. 554 (1967) Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
as a Page 385 U. S. 555 rulemaking organ for the promulgation of state rules of criminal procedure. Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
post facto laws, cruel and unusual punishment, due process, equal protection, and privileges and immunities. Moore v. MissouriSearch
-
Graham v. WestSearch
-
have always been given wide leeway in dividing responsibility between judge and jury in criminal cases. Hallinger v. DavisSearch
-
Chandler v. FretagSearch
-
it is usually excluded except when it is particularly probative in showing such things as intent, Nye & Nissen v. UnitedSearch
-
Ellisor v. StateSearch
-
an element in the crime, Doyle v. StateSearch
-
identity, Chavira v. StateSearch
-
malice, Moss v. StateSearch
-
motive, Moses v. StateSearch
-
a system of criminal activity, Haley v. StateSearch
-
or when the defendant has raised the issue of his character, Michelson v. UnitedSearch
-
Perkins v. StateSearch
-
or when the defendant has testified and the State seeks to impeach his credibility, Giacone v. StateSearch
-
permitting introduction of the evidence. The defendants' interests are protected by limiting instructions, see Giacone v. StateSearch
-
admission of particularly prejudicial evidence even though admissible under an accepted rule of evidence. See Spears v. StateSearch
-
and, in the cases before us, there is no claim that its presentation was in any way inflammatory. Compare Marshall v. UnitedSearch
-
crime (on which there may be an acquittal) may influence the jury as to a totally different charge. See Delli Paoli v. UnitedSearch
-
Opper v. UnitedSearch
-
Krulewitch v. UnitedSearch
-
governmental interest. Page 385 U. S. 563 Such an approach was, in fact, taken by the Court in Michelson v. UnitedSearch
-
under what has been termed the supervisory power of this Court over proceedings in the lower federal courts, see Cheff v. SchnackenbergSearch
-
guarantees the fundamental Page 385 U. S. 564 elements of fairness in a criminal trial. See, e.g., Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
Estes v. TexasSearch
-
Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 97 , 291 U. S. 105 . See also Buchalter v. NewSearch
-
York, 319 U. S. 427 . Petitioners' reliance on Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
an area of law that has been characterized by the development of particularly stiff constitutional rules. See Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
can never purge the erroneous introduction of evidence or limit evidence to its rightful purpose. Compare Opper v. UnitedSearch
-
Some jurisdictions deal with the recidivist issue in a totally separate proceeding, see, e.g., Oyler v. BolesSearch
-
State v. FerroneSearch
-
Together with No. 69, Bell v. TexasSearch
-
on certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, argued October 17, 1966, and No. 70, Reed v. BetoSearch
-
cases, a defendant, by stipulating his prior convictions, could keep knowledge of them away from the jury. See Pitcock v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial