Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gardner Vs. Florida

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 22, 1977

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

60 entries 7 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Furman Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  2. Specht Vs. Patterson US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1967
  3. Gregg Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1976
  4. Witherspoon Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1968
  5. Morrissey Vs. Brewer US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  6. Jurek Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1976
  7. Mempa Vs. Rhay US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1967
  8. U.S. 349 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Gardner v. Florida
    Search
  9. U.S. 349 (1977) Gardner v. Florida
    Search
  10. was imposed, at least in part, on the basis of information that he had no opportunity to deny or explain. Williams v. New
    Search
  11. sentencing procedure would be subject to the defects that resulted in the holding of unconstitutionality in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  12. Woodson v. North
    Search
  13. U. S. 362 -364. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN concurred in the judgment on the basis of the judgments in Woodson v. North
    Search
  14. Carolina, supra, and Roberts v. Louisiana
    Search
  15. State v. Dixon
    Search
  16. determination of the constitutionality of the Florida capital sentencing procedure. Following the decision in Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  17. holding that the Florida procedure, on its face, avoids the constitutional deficiencies identified in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  18. Page 430 U. S. 355 II The State places its primary reliance on this Court's landmark decision in Williams v. New
    Search
  19. recognized that death is a different kind of punishment from any other which may be imposed in this country. Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  20. is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding at which he is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel. Mempa v. Rhay
    Search
  21. of sentence even if he may have no right to object to a particular result of the sentencing process. See Witherspoon v. Illinois
    Search
  22. they may base their decisions on secret information. However acceptable that argument might have been before Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  23. reviewed on appeal. Since the State must administer its capital sentencing procedures with a even hand, see Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  24. sentencing procedure would be subject to the defects which resulted in the holding of unconstitutionality in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  25. Swan v. State
    Search
  26. considered this point on the appeal in this case, we presume that the entire court passed on the question. Cf. Boykin v. Alabama
    Search
  27. Supp. 1976). This Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute in Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  28. report in the first instance in this Court flouts the procedural regularity mandated for capital sentencing by Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  29. U. S. 238 , and Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  30. See Williams v. New
    Search
  31. This argument is inconsistent with the basis upon which the Florida capital sentencing procedure was upheld, Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  32. The Supreme Court of Florida decided petitioner's case before our decision in Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  33. supra, and before its own consideration of Proffitt, 315 So.2d 461 (1975), or of Tedder v. State
    Search
  34. their failure to follow the teaching of those cases. MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in the judgment. In Woodson v. North
    Search
  35. Id. at 428 U. S. 304 -305. (Emphasis added.) The issue in this case, like the issue in Woodson v. North
    Search
  36. in the judgment. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring in the judgment. Given the judgments of the Court in Woodson v. North
    Search
  37. Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976), and in Roberts v. Louisiana
    Search
  38. Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  39. and Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  40. penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  41. imposed. Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  42. that hope. While I continue to believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all circumstances, see Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  43. the very basis for this Court's approval of that system in Proffitt. Page 430 U. S. 366 In Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  44. a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ,' Tedder v. State
    Search
  45. can review that case in light of the other decisions and determine whether or not the punishment is too great.' State v. Dixon
    Search
  46. upheld in Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Gardner v. Florida
    Search
  48. Williams v. New
    Search
  49. and Roberts v. Louisiana
    Search
  50. Proffitt v. Florida
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial