Citation network
Buchanan Vs. Kentucky
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 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
-
U.S. 402 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Buchanan v. KentuckySearch
-
U.S. 402 (1987) Buchanan v. KentuckySearch
-
that were beneficial to him, and that the use of Dr. Lange's report did not violate petitioner's rights under Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
the jury. Lockhart v. McCreeSearch
-
that Stanford had been the triggerman, that petitioner had no intent to kill Poore, and that, therefore, under Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
of the report did not violate petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination under Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
of the nature of the issues involved, we granted certiorari, 476 U.S. 1140 (1986). II Last Term, in Lockhart v. McCreeSearch
-
Id. at 476 U. S. 178 , quoting Wainwright v. WittSearch
-
decide all the issues in a capital trial was proper, and it distinguished that case from the situations in Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 510 (1968), and Adams v. TexasSearch
-
Court's precedent also controls petitioner's claim as to the prosecutor's use of Doctor Lange's report. In Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
violation because of the failure to administer to Smith, before the examination, the warning required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Fifth Amendment privilege against the introduction of this psychiatric testimony by the prosecution. See United States v. ByersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Pope v. UnitedSearch
-
a report for this limited rebuttal purpose does not constitute a Fifth Amendment violation. B In Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
for certiorari. See this Court's Rule 21.1(a). We therefore need not, and do not, reach these claims. See Hill v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. Cardinale v. LouisianaSearch
-
to file a motion for severance on the ground that the joint trial might be unduly prejudicial. See Commonwealth v. RogersSearch
-
S.W.2d 839 (Ky.1985). In Kentucky, the trial judge has considerable discretion whether to permit the severance. Wilson v. CommonwealthSearch
-
U. S. 412 , 469 U. S. 424 (1985), quoting Adams v. TexasSearch
-
S. 45 (1980). The prosecutor may remove such potential jurors according to the guidelines set out in Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 510 (1968), as refined by the decision in Witt. For the sake of shorthand, see Lockhart v. McCreeSearch
-
had been provoked and that the defendant had acted in a subjectively reasonable way given this provocation. See Gall v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Wellman v. CommonwealthSearch
-
rule requiring competency examinations when the trial judge has doubts about a defendant's mental condition, see Pate v. RobinsonSearch
-
joins and JUSTICE STEVENS joins as to Part I, dissenting. I dissented from this Court's holding in Lockhart v. McCreeSearch
-
decide both guilt or innocence and the appropriate sentence was sufficient to reject a proposal made in Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
his consent to the examination with due regard for the purposes it was designed to serve. Our decision in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
Commonwealth to rebut petitioner's temporally and functionally unrelated evidence of emotional disturbance. Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
been presented to this Court. If this claim were presented, however, I would, consistent with my dissent in Lockhart v. McCreeSearch
-
time of the alleged offense, once put on notice that the defendant will place this mental condition in issue. Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
The right to be tried and convicted only if legally competent inheres in the Fourteenth Amendment, see Pate v. RobinsonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Buchanan v. KentuckySearch
-
Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
and Adams v. TexasSearch
-
In Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
See United States v. ByersSearch
-
B In Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
See Hill v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Commonwealth v. RogersSearch
-
Wilson v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Adams v. TexasSearch
-
See Gall v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Pate v. RobinsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial