Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Jurek Vs. Texas

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

46 entries 2 linked 44 unlinked
Show
  1. Gregg Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1976
  2. Proffitt Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1976
  3. U.S. 262 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Jurek v. Texas
    Search
  4. U.S. 262 (1976) Jurek v. Texas
    Search
  5. on appeal, challenges the constitutionality of the Texas procedures enacted after this Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  6. it has been construed to embrace the jury's consideration of such circumstances. Thus, as in the cases of Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  7. ante p. 428 U. S. 153 , and Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  8. the individual defendant. Pp. 428 U. S. 274 -276. THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurred in the judgment. See Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  9. unconstitutionally arbitrary or discretionary statutory features nevertheless remain are without substance, Roberts v. Louisiana
    Search
  10. as is his assertion that the Eighth Amendment forbids the death penalty under any and all circumstances. Roberts v. Louisiana
    Search
  11. WHITE, J., dissenting). Pp. 428 U. S. 278 -279. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN concurred in the judgment. See Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  12. in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We reject this argument for the reasons stated today in Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  13. III A After this Court held Texas' system for imposing capital punishment unconstitutional in Branch v. Texas
    Search
  14. decided with Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  15. far affirmed only two judgments imposing death sentences under its post- Furman law -- in this case and in Smith v. State
    Search
  16. the categories of murders for which a death sentence may ever be imposed serves much the same purpose. See McGautha v. California
    Search
  17. for hire, or whether the defendant was an inmate of a penal institution at the time of its commission. Cf. Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  18. certainly fall short of providing the individualized sentencing determination that we today have held in Woodson v. North
    Search
  19. For such a system would approach the mandatory laws that we today hold unconstitutional in Woodson and Roberts v. Louisiana
    Search
  20. a capital sentencing system must allow the sentencing authority to consider mitigating circumstances. In Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  21. system Page 428 U. S. 272 that directs the jury to consider any mitigating factors, and, in Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  22. a death sentence, it focused on the question of whether any mitigating factors were present in the case. See Smith v. State
    Search
  23. misinterprets the Furman decision, and we reject it for the reasons set out in our opinion today in Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  24. imposed, it does not violate the Constitution. Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  25. See Branch v. Texas
    Search
  26. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring in judgment. I concur in the judgment. See Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  27. join, concurring in the judgment. Following the invalidation of the Texas capital punishment statute in Branch v. Texas
    Search
  28. and judgment, must be affirmed here. 522 S.W.2d 934 (1975). For the reasons stated in my dissent in Roberts v. Louisiana
    Search
  29. be imposed so seldom, so arbitrarily, and so freakishly that the new statute suffers from the infirmities which Branch v. Texas
    Search
  30. penological function, and hence fall within reach of the decision announced by five Members of the Court in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  31. judgment of affirmance. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring in the judgment. I concur in the judgment. See Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  32. U.S. Supreme Court Jurek v. Texas
    Search
  33. Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  34. of Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  35. and Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  36. See Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  37. Branch v. Texas
    Search
  38. Smith v. State
    Search
  39. See McGautha v. California
    Search
  40. Cf. Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  41. Woodson v. North
    Search
  42. Woodson and Roberts v. Louisiana
    Search
  43. In Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  44. See Smith v. State
    Search
  45. the Constitution. Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  46. Roberts v. Louisiana
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial