Citation network
Booth Vs. Maryland
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 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. 496 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Booth v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. 496 (1987) Booth v. MarylandSearch
-
an arbitrary factor into the sentencing decision. The court noted that it had considered this argument in Lodowski v. StateSearch
-
U. S. 862 , 462 U. S. 879 (1983) (emphasis in original). See also Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
See Zant v. StephensSearch
-
of the offense. Brief for Respondent 21 (quoting Lodowski v. StateSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
consequences of his actions may increase his moral culpability in a constitutionally significant manner. See Tison v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 420 , 446 U. S. 433 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.). See also Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that the defendant also Page 482 U. S. 507 must be given the chance to rebut this evidence. See Garner v. FloridaSearch
-
to the murder of Mrs. Bronstein. His conviction was affirmed, and his sentence is currently under review. See Reid v. StateSearch
-
Lodowski v. StateSearch
-
of the Eighth Amendment apply to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
People v. LevittSearch
-
are perceived to be less worthy. Of course, our system of justice does not tolerate such distinctions. Cf. Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
must be provided. Consideration of other information in the VIS is subject to the trial judge's discretion. See Reid v. StateSearch
-
A.2d 1289, 1294 (1985). This type of information is not unique to the VIS in Booth's case. In Lodowski v. StateSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
id. at 428 U. S. 176 (quoting Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 428 U. S. 175 (quoting Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
interest in counteracting the mitigating evidence which the defendant is entitled to put in, see, e.g., Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
to rely on a factor such as the victim's race in determining whether the death penalty is appropriate. Cf. McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
in this case encouraged this, nor should we lightly presume such misconduct on the jury's part. Cf. McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
the basis for punishment even if the offender lacked the specific intent to commit that harm. See, e.g., United States v. FeolaSearch
-
ante at 482 U. S. 509 , n. 12 (quoting Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
defendant who is eligible for the death penalty should receive it, ante at 482 U. S. 502 (quoting Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
because, in the course of the escape, their father and an accomplice murdered a married couple and two children. Tison v. ArizonaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Booth v. MarylandSearch
-
Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
See Tison v. ArizonaSearch
-
Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
See Garner v. FloridaSearch
-
See Reid v. StateSearch
-
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cf. Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In Lodowski v. StateSearch
-
Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Cf. McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
Tison v. ArizonaSearch
-
California v. RamosSearch
-
Zant v. StephensSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial