Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Burger Vs. Kemp

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 26, 1987

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

68 entries 8 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Holloway Vs. Arkansas US Supreme Court · Apr 03, 1978
  2. Strickland Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · May 14, 1984
  3. United States Vs. Cronic US Supreme Court · May 14, 1984
  4. Murray Vs. Carrier US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1986
  5. Eddings Vs. Oklahoma US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1982
  6. Lockett Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jul 03, 1978
  7. Reed Vs. Ross US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1984
  8. Cuyler Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · May 12, 1980
  9. U.S. 776 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Burger v. Kemp
    Search
  10. U.S. 776 (1987) Burger v. Kemp
    Search
  11. His decision was supported by reasonable professional judgment, and thus met the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  12. hearing, and also during a second appeal which resulted in affirmance of petitioner's capital sentence in 1980. Burger v. State
    Search
  13. Burger v. State
    Search
  14. on an invalid aggravating circumstance. Accordingly, the District Court vacated petitioner's death sentence. Blake v. Zant
    Search
  15. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and reinstated the death penalty. Burger v. Zant
    Search
  16. first or the second sentencing hearing. After the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, we decided Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  17. in light of that decision. Burger v. Zant
    Search
  18. or revise its findings, and if appropriate, its conclusions on the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Burger v. Zant
    Search
  19. the Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis of the District Court's opinion, over the dissent of Judge Johnson. Burger v. Kemp
    Search
  20. We granted the petition for certiorari, vacated, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Francis v. Franklin
    Search
  21. on the question whether the jury instruction impermissibly shifted the burden of proof on the issue of intent. Burger v. Kemp
    Search
  22. justifies the adoption of an inflexible rule that would presume prejudice in all such cases. See Cuyler v. Sullivan
    Search
  23. U.S. at 435 U. S. 482 -483 (quoting Glasser v. United
    Search
  24. at 461-462, 265 S.E.2d at 800, the decision to forgo this issue had a sound strategic basis. As we reaffirmed in Smith v. Murray
    Search
  25. likely to prevail, far from being evidence of incompetence, is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy. Jones v. Barnes
    Search
  26. after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable. Cf. Engle v. Isaac
    Search
  27. ay be in the eye of the beholder.' Stanley v. Zant
    Search
  28. Id. at 466 U. S. 691 . V Petitioner
    Search
  29. for a murder committed while a minor violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Cf. Thompson v. State
    Search
  30. U. S. 478 , 477 U. S. 489 -490 (1986) (quoting Reed v. Ross
    Search
  31. and would thus permit a habeas corpus court to address the merits of the claim in a subsequent proceeding. Smith v. Murray
    Search
  32. the malice charge given to the jury at the guilt or innocence phase of his trial was unconstitutional under Francis v. Franklin
    Search
  33. See Rose v. Clark
    Search
  34. U. S. 570 , 478 U. S. 583 (1986) (quoting Connecticut v. Johnson
    Search
  35. to consider and could not have been precluded from considering had counsel sought to introduce it. See Hitchcock v. Dugger
    Search
  36. Skipper v. South
    Search
  37. JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, and, as to Part II, JUSTICE POWELL joins, dissenting. In Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  38. A Petitioner's first claim rests on his right to conflict-free assistance of counsel. As long ago as Glasser v. United
    Search
  39. U. S. 799 the majority opinion as departing from the Court's earlier approval of those practices, see Cuyler v. Sullivan
    Search
  40. and does not impose on such claims the two-pronged standard of inadequate performance and prejudice, see Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  41. Id. at 466 U. S. 692 , quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan
    Search
  42. to pursue certain arguments or take certain actions, it is all the more difficult to discern its effect. See Holloway v. Arkansas
    Search
  43. the appellate briefs for both petitioner and Stevens after the second sentencing proceedings. App. 54. See Burger v. Kemp
    Search
  44. confessed, but, in Page 483 U. S. 803 doing so, he pointed to petitioner as the more culpable. See Stevens v. State
    Search
  45. at his second sentencing trial. See Stevens v. State
    Search
  46. also points to the fact that petitioner and Stevens were tried separately, and relies on the observation in Cuyler v. Sullivan
    Search
  47. See Kimmelman v. Morrison
    Search
  48. See Holloway v. Arkansas
    Search
  49. U.S. at 435 U. S. 482 , quoting Glasser v. United
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Burger v. Kemp
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial