Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Texas Vs. Mccullough

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 26, 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

50 entries 6 linked 44 unlinked
Show
  1. Stone Vs. Powell US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  2. ChaffIn Vs. Stynchcombe US Supreme Court · May 21, 1973
  3. Michigan Vs. Payne US Supreme Court · May 21, 1973
  4. Rummel Vs. Estelle US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1980
  5. United States Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1972
  6. North Carolina Vs. Pearce US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1969
    Distinguished
  7. U.S. 134 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Texas v. McCullough
    Search
  8. U.S. 134 (1986) Texas v. McCullough
    Search
  9. of Appeals reversed and sentenced respondent to 20 years' imprisonment, considering itself bound by North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  10. imprisonment. 680 S.W.2d 493 (1983). That court considered itself bound by this Court's decision in North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  11. fixed it at the second trial. We granted certiorari. 472 U.S. 1007 (1985). We reverse. II In North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  12. U. S. 17 , 412 U. S. 25 (1973) (emphasis omitted). For example, in Moon v. Maryland
    Search
  13. the defendant conceded and it was clear that vindictiveness had played no part in the enlarged sentence. In Colten v. Kentucky
    Search
  14. does not apply, the defendant may still obtain relief if he can show actual vindictiveness upon resentencing. Wasman v. United
    Search
  15. cannot truly be said to have taken place. In Colten v. Kentucky
    Search
  16. Perhaps, then, the reach of Pearce is best captured in our statement in United States v. Goodwin
    Search
  17. Wasman, supra, at 468 U. S. 564 (quoting Williams v. New
    Search
  18. a constitutional prohibition against considering relevant information in assessing sentences. We explained in Chaffin v. Stynchcombe
    Search
  19. presumption of vindictiveness applies even where different sentencing judges are involved. See, e.g., United States v. Hawthorne
    Search
  20. s opinion in Pearce. Clearly the Court did not focus on it as a consideration for its holding. See Hardwick v. Doolittle
    Search
  21. Subsequent opinions have also elucidated the basis for the Pearce presumption. We held in Chaffin v. Stynchcombe
    Search
  22. circumstances. Cf. Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae in North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  23. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22-23 (quoting Baker v. Carr
    Search
  24. to tailor judicially created rules to implement constitutional guarantees, like the Pearce rule, see Michigan v. Payne
    Search
  25. U. S. 47 , 412 U. S. 51 (1973), when the need to do so becomes apparent. Cf. United States v. Leon
    Search
  26. resulted from judicial vindictiveness is sufficiently remote that the presumption established in North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  27. dissenting. With little more than a passing nod to the considerations that prompted this Court, in North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  28. purported 'confession' given by a Co-Defendant, KENNETH McCULLOUGH. Such conduct constituted error in light of Bruton vs. United
    Search
  29. App. 25-26. McCullough's election likely was affected by his counsel's belief that, while Chaffin v. Stynchcombe
    Search
  30. U. S. 17 (1973), had made the rule of North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  31. the court was bound by North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  32. The prosecution replied that, because defendant had elected to be sentenced by the trial judge, North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  33. In response to defendant's motion, she later filed an order in which, while holding the rule of North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  34. U.S. at 395 U. S. 725 . Thus, in Chaffin v. Stynchcombe
    Search
  35. by the defendant since that time, might have been open to some speculation, at least until Wasman v. United
    Search
  36. Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae in North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  37. pp. 9-10. IV A lot has happened since the final day of the October, 1968 Term, the day North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  38. U.S. Supreme Court Texas v. McCullough
    Search
  39. II In North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  40. Moon v. Maryland
    Search
  41. In Colten v. Kentucky
    Search
  42. Wasman v. United
    Search
  43. Williams v. New
    Search
  44. United States v. Hawthorne
    Search
  45. See Hardwick v. Doolittle
    Search
  46. Baker v. Carr
    Search
  47. Cf. United States v. Leon
    Search
  48. of Bruton v. United
    Search
  49. of North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  50. United States v. Goodwin
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial