Citation network
Mcmillan Vs. Pennsylvania
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1986
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. 79 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U.S. 79 (1986) McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
and thus must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 , and Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
an element of a particular offense that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This case is controlled by Patterson v. NewSearch
-
imposed and neither alters the maximum sentence nor creates a separate offense calling for a separate penalty. Specht v. PattersonSearch
-
court consolidated the appeals and unanimously concluded that the Act is consistent with due process. Commonwealth v. WrightSearch
-
and thus must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), and Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
in question, 508 Pa. at 34, 494 A.2d at 359, quoting Patterson v. NewSearch
-
claim as well, holding that the preponderance standard satisfies due process under the approach set out in Addington v. TexasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. at 397 U. S. 364 . In Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government, Irvine v. CaliforniaSearch
-
principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.' Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
within the province of a legislature to declare an individual guilty or presumptively guilty of a crime.' McFarland v. AmericanSearch
-
Tot v. UnitedSearch
-
S. at 432 U. S. 210 . Here, of course, the Act creates no presumptions of the sort condemned in McFarland v. AmericanSearch
-
U. S. 79 (1916) (presumption from price sugar refiner paid for sugar that refiner was party to a monopoly), or Tot v. UnitedSearch
-
but it does not. Petitioners contend that this Court's decision in Specht v. PattersonSearch
-
Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
courts have traditionally heard evidence and found facts without any prescribed burden of proof at all. See Williams v. NewSearch
-
have consistently approved sentencing schemes that mandate consideration of facts related to the crime, e.g., Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
See United States v. DavisSearch
-
no Sixth Amendment right to jury sentencing, even where the sentence turns on specific findings of fact. See Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
State v. GanttSearch
-
State v. MullinsSearch
-
U. S. 418 (1979), and Santosky v. KramerSearch
-
lighten the constitutional burden of the prosecution with respect to the elements of the crime. See Patterson v. NewSearch
-
how mitigating facts should be analyzed under Winship. This issue will be aired when the Court considers Martin v. OhioSearch
-
visible possession of a firearm is conduct that the Pennsylvania General Assembly intended to prohibit, Commonwealth v. WrightSearch
-
Patterson v. NewSearch
-
elementary' principle whose 'enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.' Coffin v. UnitedSearch
-
See ante at 477 U. S. 85 (quoting Patterson v. NewSearch
-
it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Indeed, contrary to the supposition of the majority, Patterson v. NewSearch
-
of a firearm whether attention is focused on the stigmatizing or punitive consequences of that finding. See Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
U.S. at 432 U. S. 210 , citing Tot v. UnitedSearch
-
It was on the basis of these cases that Patterson distinguished the Maine statute struck down in Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
conceded that the federal enactment in Tot proscribed only receipt of firearms in interstate commerce. See Tot v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 432 U. S. 215 (emphasis added). Cf. United States v. RomanoSearch
-
violence, in neither case did the legislature do so. This explanation, although not entirely satisfactory, see State v. LaffertySearch
-
is consistent with the Maine Supreme Court's explanation on direct appeal that state law presumed malice. See State v. WilburSearch
-
U.S. at 421 U. S. 698 . Accord, Specht v. PattersonSearch
-
Note, The Constitutionality of Affirmative Defenses after Patterson v. NewSearch
-
Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
and Mullaney v. WilburSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial