Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Marshall Vs. Lonberger

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 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

72 entries 5 linked 67 unlinked
Show
  1. BoykIn Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Jun 02, 1969
  2. Smith Vs. O'Grady US Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1941
  3. Snyder Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1934
  4. Parker Vs. Randolph US Supreme Court · May 29, 1979
  5. Townsend Vs. Sain US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
    Relied / Followed
  6. U.S. 422 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Marshall v. Lonberger
    Search
  7. U.S. 422 (1983) Marshall v. Lonberger
    Search
  8. or at one of the Illinois presentencing proceedings, of the charges on which he was indicted in Illinois. Henderson v. Morgan
    Search
  9. U. S. 436 -438. (c) Because respondent's prior conviction was valid, this case is controlled by Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  10. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which granted respondent's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Lonberger v. Jago
    Search
  11. F.2d 1189 (1980), and Lonberger v. Jago
    Search
  12. previous Illinois felony charge, offered and admitted into evidence at his Ohio murder trial, was invalid under Boykin v. Alabama
    Search
  13. rendered respondent's ensuing conviction in that proceeding unconstitutional under this Court's decision in Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  14. U. S. 109 (1967). The State claims that the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority, under our holding in Sumner v. Mata
    Search
  15. constitutionally infirm. We granted certiorari to consider, inter alia, the interrelationship between Boykin v. Alabama
    Search
  16. supra, and Henderson v. Morgan
    Search
  17. Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court, and ordered that a writ of habeas corpus issue. Lonberger v. Jago
    Search
  18. certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded for reconsideration in the light of Sumner v. Mata
    Search
  19. U. S. 539 (1981). Marshall v. Lonberger
    Search
  20. U.S. 902 (1981). On remand, the Court of Appeals adhered to its previous decision. Lonberger v. Jago
    Search
  21. d)(8). Sumner v. Mata
    Search
  22. stated. The question of an effective waiver of a federal constitutional right is governed by federal standards. Boykin v. Alabama
    Search
  23. an incomplete understanding of the charge that his plea cannot stand as an intelligent admission of guilt.' Henderson v. Morgan
    Search
  24. U. S. 637 , 426 U. S. 645 n. 13 . . . (1976). Accord, Smith v. O'Grady
    Search
  25. whether a plea of guilty is voluntary for purposes of the Federal Constitution is a question of federal law, Henderson v. Morgan
    Search
  26. Court of Appeals explicitly credited Lonberger's testimony in a footnote rejecting the State's reliance on Henderson v. Morgan
    Search
  27. d). In LaVallee v. Delle
    Search
  28. credibility of the defendant. We think the same is true in the present case. The assumption referred to in Townsend v. Sain
    Search
  29. U. S. 293 , 372 U. S. 314 -315 (1963), quoted in LaVallee v. Delle
    Search
  30. credibility of witnesses whose demeanor has been observed by the state trial court, but not by them. In United States v. Oregon
    Search
  31. Boyd v. Boyd
    Search
  32. U. S. 329 , 312 U. S. 334 (1941), quoted in Henderson v. Morgan
    Search
  33. U.S. at 426 U. S. 645 . In Henderson v. Morgan
    Search
  34. in the constitutional meaning of that term. We think that the application of the principles enunciated in Henderson v. Morgan
    Search
  35. in the Ohio murder trial of the conviction based on that plea deprived respondent of no federal right. Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  36. as recognized in Parker v. Randolph
    Search
  37. Cf. Sandstrom v. Montana
    Search
  38. supra, at 442 U. S. 74 -75, that the jury will be unable to follow its instructions. See, e.g., Bruton v. United
    Search
  39. malice, motive, and plan -- whose application is left largely to the discretion of the trial judge, see Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  40. has been fully considered in cases such as Spencer, supra, Bruton, supra, Parker, supra, and Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  41. as this by our decision in Spencer, supra, in which the Court quoted the remark of Justice Cardozo in Snyder v. Massachusetts
    Search
  42. Remarking on the state of the law of evidence with respect to reputation in criminal cases, the Court in Michelson v. United
    Search
  43. at 459 U. S. 438 , and n. 6. I The bulk of the Court's opinion is devoted not to defending Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  44. U. S. 554 (1967), but rather to establishing that this case is not governed on all fours by Burgett v. Texas
    Search
  45. to which he pleads guilty renders his plea invalid, and a conviction based upon it unconstitutional. See Henderson v. Morgan
    Search
  46. him with attempted murder. The Court resolves this tension on the basis of rules of law derived from Sumner v. Mata
    Search
  47. U. S. 539 (1981), and on dictum in Henderson v. Morgan
    Search
  48. Ante at 459 U. S. 437 -438. Under Sumner v. Mata
    Search
  49. rule forbidding convictions -- not merely punishments -- for two offenses based on a single act. See People v. King
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Marshall v. Lonberger
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial