Citation network
California Vs. Ramos
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 06, 1983
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. 992 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court California v. RamosSearch
-
U.S. 992 (1983) California v. RamosSearch
-
s probable future dangerousness. A jury's consideration of the factor of future dangerousness was upheld in Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
Instruction result in any diminution in the reliability of the sentencing decision of the kind condemned in Gardner v. FloridaSearch
-
innocence determination. Beck v. AlabamaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
has been determined that the defendant falls within the category of persons eligible for the death penalty. In Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
schemes of five States to determine whether those schemes had cured the constitutional defects identified in Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Moreover, in Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
This principle of individualization was extended in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
Finally, in Gardner v. FloridaSearch
-
decision and that it is too speculative an element for the jury's consideration. On this point, we find Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
Nor is there any diminution in the reliability of the sentencing decision of the kind condemned in Gardner v. FloridaSearch
-
instruction diverts the jury from undertaking the kind of individualized sentencing determination that, under Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Respondent also relies on Beck v. AlabamaSearch
-
by an instruction on the possible commutation of a death sentence that led the California Supreme Court, in People v. MorseSearch
-
the jury of the Governor's power to commute a death sentence did not render it constitutionally infirm. In People v. MorseSearch
-
the adequacy of this ruling to support reversal of the sentence was not addressed by the state court. See Michigan v. LongSearch
-
See Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
individual defendant. 428 U.S. at 428 U. S. 164 -165. By contrast, under the Texas scheme approved in Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
Cf. Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Woodson, supra, at 428 U. S. 304 . See also Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U.S. at 428 U. S. 189 (quoting Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. AsheSearch
-
Zant v. StephensSearch
-
does not, and indeed could not, contend that the California sentencing scheme violates the directive of Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
informational base when it considers the defendant's future dangerousness than does a California jury. In Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
how the commutation factor is to figure into its determination presents no constitutional problem. As we held in Zant v. StephensSearch
-
Ibid. Our approval in Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
P.2d at 933 (emphasis in original). We defer to the State Supreme Court's finding on this point. See, e.g., Wolfe v. NorthSearch
-
the division of responsibility between the sentencer and other authorities effected by that scheme. See, e.g., People v. WalkerSearch
-
State v. LindseySearch
-
not in terms of the clear meaning provided for it by the legislature, but in terms of a particular number of years versus theSearch
-
Poole v. StateSearch
-
State v. AtkinsonSearch
-
quoting State v. WhiteSearch
-
N.J. 158, 177-178, 142 A.2d 65, 76 (1958)). See also Sukle v. PeopleSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court California v. RamosSearch
-
In Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
People v. MorseSearch
-
In People v. MorseSearch
-
See Michigan v. LongSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial