Citation network
Lockett Vs. Ohio
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 03, 1978
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 586 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. 586 (1978) Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
the trial judge's instructions, Boulden v. HolmanSearch
-
did not violate petitioner's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the principles of Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 510 , or Taylor v. LouisianaSearch
-
if the defendant goes to trial, creates an unconstitutional disparity of sentencing alternatives, United States v. JacksonSearch
-
constituted a comment on her failure to testify and violated her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the venire in violation of her Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the principles established in Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 510 (1968), and Taylor v. LouisianaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the trial judge. Boulden v. HolmanSearch
-
the conviction as well as the sentence in a capital case. Nor was there any violation of the principles of Taylor v. LouisianaSearch
-
A Prior to Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Mandatory death penalties had proved unsatisfactory, as the plurality noted in Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
prior to Furman that discretion in sentencing offended the Constitution. See Pennslvania ex rel. Sullivan v. AsheSearch
-
Williams v. NewSearch
-
Williams v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 576 , 358 U. S. 585 (1959). As recently as McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
became impermissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by virtue of the judgment in Furman. See Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Roberts (Harry) v. LouisianaSearch
-
large part, on the plurality opinions in Woodson, supra at 428 U. S. 303 -305, and Roberts (Stanislaus) v. LouisianaSearch
-
criminal cases generally, although not constitutionally required, has long been accepted in this country. See Williams v. NewSearch
-
strength of the basis for individualized sentencing. For example, Mr. Justice Black, writing for the Court in Williams v. NewSearch
-
Ten years later, in Williams v. OklahomaSearch
-
Emphasis added.) See also Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Id. at 428 U. S. 272 -273 (opinion of STEWART, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ.), citing and quoting, Jurek v. StateSearch
-
there is no constitutional distinction between the statute approved in Proffitt and Ohio's statute, see State v. BaylessSearch
-
State v. BellSearch
-
State v. BaylessSearch
-
and criminal record of the defendant in determining whether any of the mitigating circumstances is established, State v. BellSearch
-
State v. BaylessSearch
-
See Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
See Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Rockwell v. SuperiorSearch
-
State v. SpenceSearch
-
and Roberts (Stanislaus) v. LouisianaSearch
-
as, for example, when a prisoner -- or escapee -- under a life sentence is found guilty of murder. See Robert (Harry) v. LouisianaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
of Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
Taylor v. LouisianaSearch
-
United States v. JacksonSearch
-
See Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
and Taylor v. LouisianaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial