Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gregg Vs. Georgia

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jul 02, 1976

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

63 entries 3 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Trop Vs. Dulles US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1958
  2. Furman Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  3. Witherspoon Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1968
  4. U.S. 153 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  5. U.S. 153 (1976) Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  6. punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. That statute, as amended following Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  7. Georgia's new statutory scheme, enacted to overcome the constitutional deficiencies found in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  8. crime, is cruel and unusual punishment is untenable for the reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE WHITE's dissent in Roberts v. Louisiana
    Search
  9. U. S. 350 -356. P. 428 U. S. 226 . MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN concurred in the judgment. See Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  10. used to kill Simmons and Moore, was found in the petitioner's pocket. After receiving the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  11. The Georgia statute, as amended after our decision in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  12. trial judge is required to charge lesser included offenses when they are supported by any view of the evidence. Sims v. State
    Search
  13. Ga. 668, 47 S.E.2d 862 (1948). See Linder v. State
    Search
  14. The defendant is accorded substantial latitude as to the types of evidence that he may introduce. See Brown v. State
    Search
  15. considered during the guilt stage may be considered during the sentencing stage without being resubmitted. Eberheart v. State
    Search
  16. But until Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  17. methods. See Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  18. Francis v. Resweber
    Search
  19. Weems v. United
    Search
  20. Id. at 217 U. S. 378 . See also Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  21. Later, in Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  22. limits imposed by the Eighth Amendment on what can be made criminal and punished were discussed in Robinson v. California
    Search
  23. Id. at 370 U. S. 667 . Most recently, in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  24. supra at 356 U. S. 101 . See also Jackson v. Bishop
    Search
  25. F.2d 571, 579 (CA8 1968). Cf. Robinson v. California
    Search
  26. has two aspects. First, the punishment must not involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  27. supra, at 408 U. S. 392 -393 (BURGER, C.J., dissenting). See Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  28. U. S. 381 . Second, the punishment must not be grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  29. Dennis v. United
    Search
  30. Page 428 U. S. 176 Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  31. Gore v. United
    Search
  32. States, 357 U. S. 386 , 357 U. S. 393 (1968). Cf. Robinson v. California
    Search
  33. well as through ballot referenda, is shut off. Revisions cannot be made in the light of further experience. See Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  34. common law rule Page 428 U. S. 177 imposed a mandatory death sentence on all convicted murderers. McGautha v. California
    Search
  35. laws expressly granting juries the discretion to recommend mercy. Id. at 402 U. S. 199 -200. See Woodson v. North
    Search
  36. U. S. 178 often expressly, has recognized that capital punishment is not invalid per se. In Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  37. Again, in Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
    Search
  38. Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  39. that authorized capital punishment, in effect negating a prior ruling by the Supreme Court of California in People v. Anderson
    Search
  40. is a significant and reliable objective index of contemporary values, because it is so directly involved. See Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  41. feeling that this most irrevocable of sanctions should be reserved for a small number of extreme cases. See Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  42. The Court also must ask whether it comports with the basic concept of human dignity at the core of the Amendment. Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  43. so totally without penological justification that it results in the gratuitous infliction of suffering. Cf. Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  45. See Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  46. Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  47. Sims v. State
    Search
  48. See Linder v. State
    Search
  49. See Brown v. State
    Search
  50. Eberheart v. State
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial