Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Rose Vs. Mitchell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jul 02, 1979

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

58 entries 9 linked 49 unlinked
Show
  1. Bush Vs. Kentucky US Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1883
  2. Neal Vs. Delaware US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  3. Reece Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1955
  4. Cassell Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1950
  5. Stone Vs. Powell US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  6. Castaneda Vs. Partida US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1977
  7. Hernandez Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · May 03, 1954
  8. Eubanks Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · May 26, 1958
  9. Schneckloth Vs. Bustamonte US Supreme Court · May 29, 1973
  10. U.S. 545 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Rose v. Mitchell
    Search
  11. U.S. 545 (1979) Rose v. Mitchell
    Search
  12. Amendment rights are vindicated in this context. Pp. 443 U. S. 557 -559. (c) The rationale of Stone v. Powell
    Search
  13. whether such claims should be cognizable any longer on federal habeas corpus in light of the decision in Stone v. Powell
    Search
  14. Alexander v. Louisiana
    Search
  15. U. S. 370 , 103 U. S. 394 (1881). See Castaneda v. Partida
    Search
  16. be set aside and the indictment returned by the unconstitutionally constituted grand jury be quashed. E.g., Hill v. Texas
    Search
  17. S. 552 Until today, only one Justice among those who have served on this Court in the 100 years since Strauder v. West
    Search
  18. Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1880), has departed from this line of decisions. In his dissent in Cassell v. Texas
    Search
  19. cases in which it has reaffirmed the Strauder principle in the context of grand jury discrimination. E.g., Reece v. Georgia
    Search
  20. by grand jury discrimination, since an indictment only brings that defendant before the petit jury for trial. Pierre v. Louisiana
    Search
  21. U. S. 354 , 306 U. S. 356 -358 (1939). See Cassell v. Texas
    Search
  22. Strauder v. West
    Search
  23. Smith v. Texas
    Search
  24. Ballard v. United
    Search
  25. when he is indicted by a grand jury from which members of a racial group purposefully have been excluded. E.g., Neal v. Delaware
    Search
  26. and all without regard to prejudice. Neal v. Delaware
    Search
  27. U.S. at 103 U. S. 394 , quoting Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  28. U. S. 313 , 100 U. S. 322 (1880). See Bush v. Kentucky
    Search
  29. Page 443 U. S. 557 107 U.S. at 107 U. S. 119 . The Court in Hill v. Texas
    Search
  30. protection, which the Constitution commands for all, merely as we may deem the defendant innocent or guilty. Tumey v. Ohio
    Search
  31. Hill v. Texas
    Search
  32. B The State makes the additional argument that the decision in Stone v. Powell
    Search
  33. on the ground of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury. MR. JUSTICE POWELL, dissenting in Castaneda v. Partida
    Search
  34. case may be made that claims of grand jury discrimination are not cognizable on federal habeas corpus after Stone v. Powell
    Search
  35. only where the error alleged in support of that relief affected the determination of guilt. In this case, as in Stone v. Powell
    Search
  36. In Stone v. Powell
    Search
  37. on habeas of the Page 443 U. S. 561 Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule that the reasoning of Stone v. Powell
    Search
  38. Beyond this, there are fundamental differences between the claim here at issue and the claim at issue in Stone v. Powell
    Search
  39. fully to the States. In this context, the federalism concerns that motivated the Court to adopt the rule of Stone v. Powell
    Search
  40. relief to state prisoners upon proof of the proscribed discrimination for nearly a century. See, e.g., Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  41. U.S. at 491 n. 31, quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  42. who is guilty in fact is less likely to go free, therefore, than in cases involving the exclusionary rule. Hill v. Texas
    Search
  43. relief outweighs the costs associated with such relief. We therefore decline to extend the rationale of Stone v. Powell
    Search
  44. Hernandez v. Texas
    Search
  45. in cases where this Court has found that a prima facie case was made out is most instructive. In Norris v. Alabama
    Search
  46. Id. at 294 U. S. 591 . See Castaneda v. Partida
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Rose v. Mitchell
    Search
  48. of Stone v. Powell
    Search
  49. See Castaneda v. Partida
    Search
  50. E.g., Hill v. Texas
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial