Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

James Vs. Kentucky

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 18, 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

62 entries 2 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Davis Vs. Wechsler US Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1923
  2. Cupp Vs. Naughten US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1973
  3. U.S. 341 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court James v. Kentucky
    Search
  4. U.S. 341 (1984) James v. Kentucky
    Search
  5. was convicted, and on appeal he argued that the trial judge's refusal to charge the jury as requested violated Carter v. Kentucky
    Search
  6. Staub v. City
    Search
  7. J., took no part in the decision of the case. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. In Carter v. Kentucky
    Search
  8. trial judge's refusal to tell the jury not to draw an adverse inference from his failure to testify violated Carter v. Kentucky
    Search
  9. be statements of blackletter law, the latter cautionary statements regarding the jury's conduct. See generally Webster v. Commonwealth
    Search
  10. Miller v. Noell
    Search
  11. include statements to the jury requiring it to disregard certain testimony, Perry v. Commonwealth
    Search
  12. Stallings v. Commonwealth
    Search
  13. S.W.2d 4, 5 (Ky.1977), to consider particular evidence for purposes of evaluating credibility only, Harris v. Commonwealth
    Search
  14. Lynch v. Commonwealth
    Search
  15. S.W.2d 263, 266 (Ky.App.1971), and to consider evidence as to one codefendant only, Ware v. Commonwealth
    Search
  16. Webster v. Commonwealth
    Search
  17. to instruct or to admonish the jury on a particular point, indicating that either was a possibility. E.g., Caldwell v. Commonwealth
    Search
  18. Reeves v. Commonwealth
    Search
  19. S.W.2d 926, 930, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 836 (1971). See also Bennett v. Horton
    Search
  20. Carson v. Commonwealth
    Search
  21. an adverse inference, Kentucky's highest court did not distinguish admonitions from instructions. See, e.g., Luttrell v. Commonwealth
    Search
  22. Scott v. Commonwealth
    Search
  23. Green v. Commonwealth
    Search
  24. Dixon v. Commonwealth
    Search
  25. Jones v. Commonwealth
    Search
  26. Roberson v. Commonwealth
    Search
  27. citing Hanks v. Commonwealth
    Search
  28. Freeman v. Commonwealth
    Search
  29. of Appeals has found no error where the trial court gave oral explanations of its written instructions. E.g., Allee v. Commonwealth
    Search
  30. S.W.2d 336, 342 (1970), cert. dism'd sub nom. Green v. Kentucky
    Search
  31. Ingram v. Commonwealth
    Search
  32. S.W.2d 815, 817 (1968). Finally, given Kentucky's strict contemporaneous objection rule, see, e.g., Webster v. Commonwealth
    Search
  33. for the trial court to have given a Carter instruction orally at the defendant's request. See also Weichhand v. Garlinger
    Search
  34. for federal constitutional purposes, James adequately invoked his substantive right to jury guidance. See Douglas v. Alabama
    Search
  35. state practice that can prevent implementation Page 466 U. S. 349 of federal constitutional rights. Cf. Barr v. City
    Search
  36. Baxley, 355 U. S. 313 , 355 U. S. 320 (1958), and would further no perceivable state interest, Henry v. Mississippi
    Search
  37. U. S. 443 , 379 U. S. 448 -449 (1965). See also NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  38. the defendant the right to dictate, inconsistent with state practice, how the jury is to be told. Cf. Taylor v. Kentucky
    Search
  39. U. S. 478 , 436 U. S. 485 -486 (1978). In Lakeside v. Oregon
    Search
  40. not to testify by requiring that, if the jury is to be alerted to it, it be alerted in writing. See generally Cupp v. Naughten
    Search
  41. the decision of this case. JUSTICE REHNQUIST dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Carter v. Kentucky
    Search
  42. We rejected similar logic with regard to the instructions themselves in Carter v. Kentucky
    Search
  43. See Bruno v. United
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court James v. Kentucky
    Search
  45. Carter v. Kentucky
    Search
  46. of the Court. In Carter v. Kentucky
    Search
  47. Perry v. Commonwealth
    Search
  48. Harris v. Commonwealth
    Search
  49. Ware v. Commonwealth
    Search
  50. E.g., Caldwell v. Commonwealth
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial