Citation network
Mcgautha Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 03, 1971
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. 183 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. 183 (1971) McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
silent on the issue of guilt at the cost of surrendering his chance to plead his case on the punishment issue. Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
Andres v. UnitedSearch
-
Stat. 487. Shortly thereafter, in Winston v. UnitedSearch
-
had occasion to pass on the correctness of instructions to the jury with respect to recommendations of mercy in Andres v. UnitedSearch
-
other significant discussion of standardless jury sentencing in capital cases in our decisions is found in Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
n. 15. The inner quotation is from the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Warren for four members of the Court in Trop v. DullesSearch
-
it requires a strong showing to upset this settled practice of the Nation on constitutional grounds. See Walz v. TaxSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Jackman v. RosenbaumSearch
-
Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
-
have not only failed to provide a rational basis for distinguishing the one group from the other, cf. Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
has twice had occasion to rule on separate penalty proceedings in the context of a capital case. In United States v. JacksonSearch
-
required in capital cases. Substantially this result had been sought by the petitioners in Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
a significant guide to decision here. A Crampton's argument for bifurcation runs as follows. Under Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1964), and Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
He contends that, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as elaborated in, e.g., Townsend v. BurkeSearch
-
and Mempa v. RhaySearch
-
of all the relevant evidence. Therefore, he argues, the Ohio procedure possesses the flaw we condemned in Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
Brady v. UnitedSearch
-
Parker v. NorthSearch
-
as to which course to follow. McMann v. RichardsonSearch
-
it be successfully, that the mere force of evidence is compulsion of the sort forbidden by the privilege. See Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
in his own behalf may open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence which is damaging to his case. See Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
Michelson v. UnitedSearch
-
behind the privilege are varied, and not all are implicated in any given application of the privilege. See Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
Murphy v. WaterfrontSearch
-
cross-examination on matters reasonably related to the subject matter of his direct examination. See, e.g., Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
Fitzpatrick v. UnitedSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
who takes the stand in his own behalf may be impeached by proof of prior convictions or the like. See Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
Luck v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. PalumboSearch
-
the Government case enough for it to support a verdict of guilty. Page 402 U. S. 216 E.g., United States v. CalderonSearch
-
Cephus v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 15, 324 F.2d 893 (1963). Finally, only last Term, in Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
Page 402 U. S. 217 we have described. While we recognize the truth of Mr. Justice Frankfurter's insight in Green v. UnitedSearch
-
fact that capital, as opposed to any other, sentencing is in issue seem to us to distinguish this case. See Williams v. NewSearch
-
to be sure for purposes not wholly unrelated to those served by the right of allocution in former times, see Green v. UnitedSearch
-
guarantees defendants the right to have their counsel argue in summation for mercy, as well as for acquittal. Shelton v. StateSearch
-
extent to which evidence going solely to the issue of punishment is admissible under Ohio law is unclear, see Ashrook v. StateSearch
-
such personal participation in the criminal process is not necessarily a constitutional flaw in the conviction. Hill v. UnitedSearch
-
from any adverse consequences on the issue of guilt. We therefore reject this branch of petitioner's argument as well. v. BeforeSearch
-
of criminology, or even those that measure up to the individual predilections of members of this Court. See Spencer v. TexasSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial