Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Engle Vs. Isaac

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 05, 1982

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

70 entries 4 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Mullaney Vs. Wilbur US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1975
  2. Wainwright Vs. Sykes US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1977
  3. Henderson Vs. Kibbe US Supreme Court · May 16, 1977
  4. United States Vs. Frady US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1982
  5. U.S. 107 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  6. U.S. 107 (1982) Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  7. defense of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. In 1976, however, the Ohio Supreme Court, in State v. Robinson
    Search
  8. prisoner from obtaining adjudication of his constitutional claim in the state courts, and thus, as held in Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  9. U. S. 137 . Page 456 U. S. 110 JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  10. required criminal defendants to carry the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. See State v. Seliskar
    Search
  11. Szalkai v. State
    Search
  12. Silvus v. State
    Search
  13. of self-defense, the state court ruled, the prosecutor must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Robinson
    Search
  14. A) to place the burden of proving absence of self-defense on the prosecution. See State v. Robinson
    Search
  15. Page 456 U. S. 115 Ten months after Isaac's trial, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Robinson
    Search
  16. This default waived Isaac's claim. State v. Glaros
    Search
  17. State v. Slone
    Search
  18. On the same day, that court decided State v. Humphries
    Search
  19. Ohio St.2d 95, 364 N.E.2d 1354 (1977), and State v. Williams
    Search
  20. rule. Since Hughes offered no explanation for his failure to object, and showed no actual prejudice, Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  21. U. S. 72 (1977), barred him from asserting the claim. Hughes v. Engle
    Search
  22. See Fay v. Noia
    Search
  23. U. S. 391 (1963). Although the court cited our opinion in Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  24. burden Bell with proving self-defense, since it had not defined absence of self-defense as an element of murder. Bell v. Perini
    Search
  25. was whether Bell was entitled to retroactive application of State v. Robinson
    Search
  26. the District Court noted that this Court had sanctioned just this sort of limit on retroactivity. See Hankerson v. North
    Search
  27. Carolina, 432 U. S. 233 , 432 U. S. 244 , n. 8 (1977). Bell v. Perini
    Search
  28. that State v. Robinson
    Search
  29. Ohio trial court. Since he further failed to show either cause for or actual prejudice from the waiver, see Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  30. supra, he could not present his claim in a federal habeas proceeding. Isaac v. Engle
    Search
  31. June 26, 1978). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed all three District Court orders. In Isaac v. Engle
    Search
  32. F.2d 1129 (1980), a majority of the en banc court ruled that Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  33. rights, but would have concentrated on the State's arbitrary refusal to extend the retroactive benefits of State v. Robinson
    Search
  34. the District Court to release Bell and Hughes unless the State chose to retry them within a reasonable time. Bell v. Perini
    Search
  35. Hughes v. Engle
    Search
  36. and Patterson v. New
    Search
  37. defenses may depend, at least in part, on the manner in which the State defines the charged crime. Compare Mullaney v. Wilbur
    Search
  38. Patterson v. New
    Search
  39. State v. Clifton
    Search
  40. A)(1) (1975), and unlawful, State v. Simon
    Search
  41. preserved this claim before the state courts and, if not, to inquire whether the principles articulated in Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  42. to comply with Rule 30 is adequate, under Ohio law, to bar appellate consideration of an objection. See, e.g., State v. Humphries
    Search
  43. State v. Gordon
    Search
  44. E.2d 243 (1971). The Ohio Supreme Court has enforced this bar against the very due process argument raised here. State v. Williams
    Search
  45. Sanders v. United
    Search
  46. States, 373 U. S. 1 , 373 U. S. 225 (1963) (dissenting opinion). See also Hankerson v. North
    Search
  47. sovereign power to punish offenders and their good faith attempts to honor constitutional rights. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    Search
  48. In Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  49. In Sykes itself, for example, the prisoner alleged that the State had violated the rights guaranteed by Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  50. standard with a plain error inquiry. We rejected this argument when pressed by a federal prisoner, see United States v. Frady
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial