Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Reed Vs. Ross

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 27, 1984

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

69 entries 7 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Fay Vs. Noia US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  2. Mitchum Vs. Foster US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1972
  3. Francis Vs. Henderson US Supreme Court · May 03, 1976
  4. Wainwright Vs. Sykes US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1977
  5. Estelle Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · May 03, 1976
  6. Mullaney Vs. Wilbur US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1975
  7. Leland Vs. Oregon US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1952
  8. U.S. 1 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Reed v. Ross
    Search
  9. U.S. 1 (1984) Reed v. Ross
    Search
  10. his conviction on several grounds, he did not challenge the constitutionality of this instruction. In 1975, Mullaney v. Wilbur
    Search
  11. of due process, the requirement that the defendant bear the burden of proving lack of malice. In 1977, Hankerson v. North
    Search
  12. Court of Appeals summarily affirmed, but this Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  13. U. S. 107 , and United States v. Frady
    Search
  14. Ross, the defendant, had the burden of proving each of these defenses. Six years later, this Court decided Mullaney v. Wilbur
    Search
  15. defendant bear the burden of proving lack of malice. Id. at 421 U. S. 704 . Two years later, Hankerson v. North
    Search
  16. the Court applied the principle to the related question of allocating burdens of proof in a criminal case. Mullaney v. Wilbur
    Search
  17. the prosecution to bear the burden of persuasion with respect to each element of a crime. Finally, Hankerson v. North
    Search
  18. New York, 407 U. S. 203 (1972), which had held that Winship was retroactively applicable. Quoting Ivan V. and
    Search
  19. tried for murder under the same North Carolina burden-of-proof law that gave rise to Hankerson's claim in Hankerson v. North
    Search
  20. Page 468 U. S. 6 North Carolina for over 100 years, was summarized by the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Hankerson
    Search
  21. Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  22. U. S. 107 (1982), and United States v. Frady
    Search
  23. and entertain a state prisoner's contention that his constitutional rights have been violated. See, e.g., Francis v. Henderson
    Search
  24. supra at 425 U. S. 539 . See also Fay v. Noia
    Search
  25. F.2d at 708. Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  26. precise content. See Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  27. absent exceptional circumstances, a defendant is bound by the tactical decisions of competent counsel, Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  28. procedures and then turn around and seek refuge in federal court from the consequences of such conduct, Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  29. in the expectation that his client's constitutional claims can be raised at a later date in federal court. Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  30. corpus relief as a hedge against the strategic risks he takes in his client's defense in state court. Wainwright v. Sykes
    Search
  31. principle that had not been previously recognized, but which is held to have retroactive application. In United States v. Johnson
    Search
  32. might emerge from this Court. Id. at 457 U. S. 549 (quoting Desist v. United
    Search
  33. S. 258 -259 (1969)). First, a decision of this Court may explicitly overrule one of our precedents. United States v. Johnson
    Search
  34. opposing the prevailing practice. This case is covered by the third category. At the time of Ross' appeal, Leland v. Oregon
    Search
  35. Patterson v. New
    Search
  36. appeal that the issue first surfaced in the North Carolina courts, and even then it was rejected out of hand. State v. Sparks
    Search
  37. N.C. 631, 643-644, 207 S.E.2d 712, 719 (1974). See also State v. Wetmore
    Search
  38. State v. Harris
    Search
  39. was unconstitutional to require a defendant to disprove an essential element of a crime for which he is charged. Stump v. Bennett
    Search
  40. State v. Nales
    Search
  41. that they provided a reasonable basis upon which Ross could have realistically appealed his conviction. In Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  42. Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 364 . As the Court in Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  43. Moreover, as evidence of the reasonableness of the legal basis for raising the Mullaney issue in 1975, Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  44. U. S. 20 proof. 456 U.S. at 456 U. S. 131 -132. None of these bases of decision relied upon in Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  45. was an element of the crime of second-degree murder, and that self-defense negated unlawfulness. See Hankerson v. North
    Search
  46. objection at trial was not necessary to preserve for review a question involving jury instructions. State v. Gause
    Search
  47. errors that could have been raised on appeal may not be raised for the first time in postconviction proceedings. State v. Abernathy
    Search
  48. State v. White
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Reed v. Ross
    Search
  50. Hankerson v. North
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial