Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Turner Vs. Murray

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 30, 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

64 entries 3 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Caldwell Vs. Mississippi US Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1985
  2. Lockett Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jul 03, 1978
  3. Ristaino Vs. Ross US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1976
  4. U.S. 28 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Turner v. Murray
    Search
  5. U.S. 28 (1986) Turner v. Murray
    Search
  6. that risk, being especially serious in view of the finality of the death sentence, could have been minimized. Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  7. Turner v. Commonwealth
    Search
  8. jurors on racial prejudice. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected this argument. Relying on our decision in Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  9. decision as a matter of policy, is not constitutionally objectionable in the absence of factors akin to those in Ham v. South
    Search
  10. affirmed the District Court's denial of habeas corpus relief for Page 476 U. S. 33 petitioner. Turner v. Bass
    Search
  11. U. S. 320 , 472 U. S. 340 , n. 7 (1985) (quoting Zant v. Stephens
    Search
  12. the jury greater discretion than other systems which we have upheld against constitutional challenge. See, e.g., Jurek v. Texas
    Search
  13. be free to weigh relevant mitigating evidence before deciding whether to impose the death penalty, see, e.g., Eddings v. Oklahoma
    Search
  14. questions on the subject, including the decision whether to question the venire individually or collectively. See Ham v. South
    Search
  15. Whether the trial judge was referring to this Court's decision in Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  16. are white are executed with disproportionate frequency, the court responded by quoting our opinion in Rosales-Lopez v. United
    Search
  17. a blind belief that the facts presented in that case could not evoke racial prejudice. As we stated in Rosales-Lopez v. United
    Search
  18. thus, he does not say that, in a case like Ham v. South
    Search
  19. penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  20. concerning possible racial bias is triggered whenever a violent interracial crime has been committed. See Ross v. Massachusetts
    Search
  21. Ham v. South
    Search
  22. information with which to evaluate members of the venire. As JUSTICE WHITE noted for the Court in Rosales-Lopez v. United
    Search
  23. may require a judge to ask jurors whether they entertain any racial prejudice. Aldridge v. United
    Search
  24. Ham v. South
    Search
  25. focus thus belongs on whether there is a likelihood of bias, and not on what flows from that bias. In Ham v. South
    Search
  26. joins, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. For the reasons stated in my opinion in Ross v. Massachusetts
    Search
  27. to choose whether to make an inquiry concerning such possible prejudice. This Court did not identify in Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  28. without affording any real protection beyond that provided by our decisions in Ham v. South
    Search
  29. Carolina, 409 U. S. 524 (1973), and Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  30. case impartially nevertheless are racially biased. Such a presumption is flatly contrary to our decisions in Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  31. supra, and Rosales-Lopez v. United
    Search
  32. an impartial jury would not be seated. Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  33. law vests the trial judge with the responsibility to conduct voir dire examination of prospective jurors. Turner v. Commonwealth
    Search
  34. but the studies included no statistics concerning administration of the death penalty in Virginia. See Turner v. Commonwealth
    Search
  35. crime, raised a constitutionally significant likelihood that racial prejudice would taint the proceedings. Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  36. racial grounds. It is not easy to reconcile the Court's holding today with the principles announced and applied in Ham v. South
    Search
  37. Carolina, Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  38. and Rosales-Lopez v. United
    Search
  39. petitioner to death on February 6, 1980. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the convictions and sentences. Turner v. Commonwealth
    Search
  40. denied relief, and the Supreme Court of Virginia denied review. We denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. Turner v. Morris
    Search
  41. entered May 23, 1984, the District Court denied the writ. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Turner v. Bass
    Search
  42. Rosales-Lopez v. United
    Search
  43. and credibility by relying on their own evaluations of demeanor evidence and of responses to questions. See Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  44. U. S. 589 , 424 U. S. 595 (1976), quoting Rideau v. Louisiana
    Search
  45. As the facts of Ristaino v. Ross
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Turner v. Murray
    Search
  47. Turner v. Bass
    Search
  48. Jurek v. Texas
    Search
  49. Eddings v. Oklahoma
    Search
  50. See Ham v. South
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial