Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Smith Vs. Phillips

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 25, 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

77 entries 7 linked 70 unlinked
Show
  1. Cupp Vs. Naughten US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1973
  2. Dandridge Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1970
  3. Napue Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1959
  4. Estes Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1965
  5. Peters Vs. Kiff US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1972
  6. United States Vs. Agurs US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1976
  7. Ristaino Vs. Ross US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1976
  8. U.S. 209 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. Phillips
    Search
  9. U.S. 209 (1982) Smith v. Phillips
    Search
  10. when they happen. Such determinations may properly be made at a hearing like that held in this case. Remmer v. United
    Search
  11. that the events giving rise to the motion did not influence the verdict. People v. Phillips
    Search
  12. juror partiality is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual bias. For example, in Remmer v. United
    Search
  13. case. Even before the decision in Remmer, this Court confronted allegations of implied juror bias in Dennis v. United
    Search
  14. Id. at 339 U. S. 171 -172. See also Frazier v. United
    Search
  15. United States v. Wood
    Search
  16. U. S. 123 (1936). Our decision last Term in Chandler v. Florida
    Search
  17. findings of the statutory presumption that they are correct and may be overcome only by convincing evidence. Sumner v. Mata
    Search
  18. of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor. In Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  19. Ibid. This principle was reaffirmed in United States v. Agurs
    Search
  20. reaches only convictions obtained in violation of some provision of the United States Constitution. As we said in Cupp v. Naughten
    Search
  21. over state judicial proceedings, and may intervene only to correct wrongs of constitutional dimension. Chandler v. Florida
    Search
  22. in respondent's trial. Appended to the letter was a resume containing biographical information about Smith. People v. Philllps
    Search
  23. This conclusion was based upon the majority's reading of our decision in United States v. Agurs
    Search
  24. and the record permit, provided the asserted ground would not expand the relief which has been granted. United States v. New
    Search
  25. Ryerson v. United
    Search
  26. of the juror in question, but errs in contending that such evidence is inherently suspect. As we said in Dennis v. United
    Search
  27. Id. at 339 U. S. 171 . See also United State v. Reid
    Search
  28. As we said of Brady in United States v. Agurs
    Search
  29. perjured testimony, we have required a new trial only when the tainted evidence was material to the case. See Giglio v. United
    Search
  30. previous cases precludes the use of the conclusive presumption of implied bias in appropriate circumstances. Remmer v. United
    Search
  31. shield his biases, a postconviction hearing could adequately determine whether or not the juror was biased. In Dennis v. United
    Search
  32. at 339 U. S. 172 -173. Moreover, this Court has used implied bias to reverse a conviction. In Leonard v. United
    Search
  33. I dissent. I The right to a trial by an impartial jury lies at the very heart of due process. Irvin v. Dowd
    Search
  34. to determine whether prospective jurors are biased, even if they have no specific prior knowledge of bias. In Ham v. South
    Search
  35. about racial prejudice are not required, a generalized and thorough inquiry into prejudice is necessary. Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  36. significant portions of the population, and thus increase the risk of bias, are invalid. For example, in Peters v. Kiff
    Search
  37. Similarly, in Taylor v. Louisiana
    Search
  38. And in Witherspoon v. Illinois
    Search
  39. a fair cross-section of the community extends even to defendants who are not members of the excluded class. In Peters v. Kiff
    Search
  40. in Taylor v. Louisiana
    Search
  41. supra, at 407 U. S. 503 -504 (opinion announcing judgment). See also Taylor v. Louisiana
    Search
  42. to protect defendants from the possibility that jurors might be prejudiced by extensive pretrial publicity. In Rideau v. Louisiana
    Search
  43. a particularized showing that the confession actually prejudiced the jurors against the defendant. Later, in Irvin v. Dowd
    Search
  44. of his case compromised the ability of the particular jury that heard the case to weigh the evidence fairly. Chandler v. Florida
    Search
  45. Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart
    Search
  46. The Court has guarded against other conduct by third parties that might affect the jury's impartiality. In Remmer v. United
    Search
  47. Ibid. See also Turner v. Louisiana
    Search
  48. Crawford v. United
    Search
  49. States, 212 U. S. 183 , 212 U. S. 196 (1909). Similarly, in Irwin v. Dowd
    Search
  50. And in Peters v. Kiff
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial