Citation network
Colten Vs. Kentucky
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 12, 1972
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. 104 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
U.S. 104 (1972) Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the greater punishment contravened the due process requirements of North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
and has no motive to deal more strictly with a de novo defendant than it would with any other. North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit an enhanced sentence on reconviction. North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. Colten v. CommonwealthSearch
-
challenges to the statute and his claim that the punishment imposed was impermissible, under North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
Connally v. GeneralSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Colten v. CommonwealthSearch
-
S.W.2d at 378. Colten also argues that the Kentucky statute is overbroad. He relies on Cox v. LouisianaSearch
-
on a guilty plea, however, he has a right to a trial de novo in a court of general criminal jurisdiction, Brown v. HoblitzellSearch
-
provided in more serious criminal cases. Although appellant here was entitled to a six-man jury, cf. Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
even in instances where the authorized punishment would entitle the accused to such tribunal. Cf. Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
imposed by the inferior court. He bases his attack both on the Due Process Clause, as interpreted in North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
as such, is unconstitutional, or that it presents hazards warranting the restraints called for in North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
This version of the facts is taken largely from the opinion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, Colten v. CommonwealthSearch
-
of the record indicates that the Kentucky courts' resolution of this factual dispute was a fair one. Cf. Cox v. LouisianaSearch
-
E.g., Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania. Mann v. CommonwealthSearch
-
State v. SpencerSearch
-
E.g., North Carolina, Virginia. State v. SparrowSearch
-
Evans v. CitySearch
-
People v. OlarySearch
-
State v. DeBonisSearch
-
Bronstein v. SuperiorSearch
-
State v. ShakSearch
-
Eldridge v. StateSearch
-
Cherry v. StateSearch
-
Commonwealth v. HarperSearch
-
Mann v. CommonwealthSearch
-
People v. OlarySearch
-
State v. StanosheckSearch
-
State v. SparrowSearch
-
Rice v. NorthSearch
-
Lemieux v.Robbins, 414 F.2d 353 (CA1 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1017 (1970). See also Manns v. AllmanSearch
-
it can be disruptive. As we said in Terminiello v. ChicagoSearch
-
the access road. See 467 S.W.2d 374, 376. MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting. In my view, North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
penalizing those who choose to exercise' constitutional rights, 'would be patently unconstitutional.' United States v. JacksonSearch
-
serve to 'chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights.' Id. at 390 U. S. 582 . See also Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Johnson v. AverySearch
-
enhanced punishment, based upon such a reason, would be a flagrant violation of the rights of the defendant.' Nichols v. UnitedSearch
-
Worcester v. CommissionerSearch
-
F.2d 713, 718. See Short v. UnitedSearch
-
avenues must be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede open and equal access to the courts. Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial