Citation network
Zant Vs. Stephens
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 22, 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
-
U.S. 862 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Zant v. StephensSearch
-
U.S. 862 (1983) Zant v. StephensSearch
-
of Appeals held that respondent's death penalty was invalid. In response to this Court's certified question, Zant v. StephensSearch
-
of a statutory aggravating circumstance does not render Georgia's statutory scheme invalid under the holding in Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Georgia capital sentencing statute is not invalid as applied here. Pp. 462 U. S. 873 -880. 2. Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
definition of those circumstances. While his appeal was pending, however, the Georgia Supreme Court held in Arnold v. StateSearch
-
death sentence. It concluded that the two other aggravating circumstances adequately supported the sentence. Stephens v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
state court reaffirmed this conclusion in a subsequent appeal from the denial of state habeas corpus relief. Stephens v. HopperSearch
-
later held unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals gave two reasons for that conclusion. First, it read Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Supp.1980). Zant v. StephensSearch
-
penalty may be imposed, but the factfinder has a discretion to decline to do so without giving any reason. Waters v. StateSearch
-
Hawes v. StateSearch
-
Fleming v. StateSearch
-
of a statutory aggravating circumstance in Georgia allow the jury a measure of discretion that is forbidden by Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Second, has the rule of Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
penalty. For this reason, respondent argues that Georgia's statutory scheme is invalid under the holding in Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Page 462 U. S. 878 Thus, in Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime. See Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
Roberts (Harry) v. LouisianaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
sentencing statute invalid as applied in this case. II Respondent contends that, under the rule of Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
left the reviewing court uncertain as to the actual ground on which the jury's decision rested. See, e.g., Williams v. NorthSearch
-
Cramer v. UnitedSearch
-
Yates v. UnitedSearch
-
to support the death penalty. The second rule derived from the Stromberg case is illustrated by Thomas v. CollinsSearch
-
U. S. 516 , 323 U. S. 528 -529 (1945), and Street v. NewSearch
-
single-count indictment or information rested on both a constitutional and an unconstitutional ground. In Thomas v. CollinsSearch
-
joint opinion indicated, 428 U.S. at 428 U. S. 192 -195, and as THE CHIEF JUSTICE explicitly noted in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
Beck v. AlabamaSearch
-
protected. Georgia has not, for example, sought to characterize the display of a red flag, cf. Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the expression of unpopular political views, cf. Terminiello v. ChicagoSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1949), or the request for trial by jury, cf. United States v. JacksonSearch
-
the sentencing process, such as for example the race, religion, or political affiliation of the defendant, cf. Herndon v. LowrySearch
-
that actually should militate in favor of a lesser penalty, such as perhaps the defendant's mental illness. Cf. Miller v. FloridaSearch
-
Cf. Gardner v. FloridaSearch
-
at 462 U. S. 866 , with an instruction on the same subject that would have been unobjectionable. Cf. Henderson v. KibbeSearch
-
The instruction to the sentencing jury, App. 18-19, is quoted in full in our opinion in Zant v. StephensSearch
-
Thus, this case does not implicate our holding in Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
clear and objective standards' necessary to control the jury's discretion in imposing the death penalty. Coley v. StateSearch
-
Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Williams v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Zant v. StephensSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial