Citation network
California Vs. Brown
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 27, 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. 538 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court California v. BrownSearch
-
U.S. 538 (1987) California v. BrownSearch
-
Id. at 537, 709 P.2d at 453, quoting People v. LanphearSearch
-
Cal.3d 163, 165, 680 P.2d 1081, 1082 (1984). Relying on Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 104 (1982), Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 (1978), and Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
be structured so as to prevent the penalty from being administered in an arbitrary and unpredictable fashion. Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
of meaningful judicial review, another safeguard that improves the reliability of the sentencing process. See Roberts v. LouisianaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
We have noted our approval of this statutory scheme. California v. RamosSearch
-
U. S. 992 , 463 U. S. 1006 , n. 19 (1983). See also Pulley v. HarrisSearch
-
the tension that has long existed between the two central principles of our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. In Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Id. at 428 U. S. 198 (quoting Coley v. StateSearch
-
Ga. 829, 834, 204 S.E.2d 612, 615 (1974)). See also Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
evidence regarding the defendant's character or background, and the circumstances of the particular offense. Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
jury. Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
the Court's opinion to the extent that it would result in the imposition of the death penalty upon respondent. Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
effect of the Court's requirement that all mitigating evidence be considered. As the plurality said in Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Petitioner 49, 58. Yet, as the California Page 479 U. S. 549 court has noted on other occasions, see People v. EasleySearch
-
the instruction so as to restrict or obfuscate the duty to consider mitigating evidence. As we held in Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
when the State Supreme Court invalidated an instruction virtually identical to the one at issue in this case. People v. BandhauerSearch
-
that the jury at a penalty trial could not be instructed not to consider sympathy for the defendant, see, e.g., People v. PolkSearch
-
character and upbringing. A similar construction has been placed on the instruction in several other cases. In People v. RobertsonSearch
-
in this Court, illustrate the gloss that consistently has been placed on the antisympathy instruction. In People v. GatesSearch
-
App. to Brief for Respondent 2a (quoting Tr. 1286-1287). In People v. WalkerSearch
-
App. to Brief for Respondent (quoting Tr. 3298). In People v. BoydeSearch
-
Court, also illustrate the fact that the subsection in this form lends itself to such an interpretation. In People v. PaytonSearch
-
Ibid. Page 479 U. S. 558 Similarly, in People v. HamiltonSearch
-
App. to Brief for Respondent 6a (quoting 19B Tr. 13-14). In People v. BigelowSearch
-
App. to Brief for Respondent 6a-7a (quoting May 8, 1981, Tr. 28). Finally, in People v. WalkerSearch
-
likely to create the type of confusion the state court viewed as probable in Bandhauer. As we said in Francis v. FranklinSearch
-
Cf. Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
People v. BoydSearch
-
There is therefore no basis for speculation that the jury felt unconstrained by the factors listed in instruction 8.84.1. v. TheSearch
-
This requirement that the jury not be precluded from relying on sympathy was confirmed after Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 238 (1972), as consistent with this Court's decisions in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 (1978), and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 104 (1982). See People v. RobertsonSearch
-
of factor (k) as an open-ended provision permitting the jury to consider any mitigating evidence. See People v. EasleySearch
-
sentencing proceeding, the sentencer's discretion must be guided to avoid arbitrary or irrational decisions. See Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
and even safeguarded the sentencer's power to exercise its mercy to spare the defendant's life. See Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 320 , 472 U. S. 331 (1985), quoting Caldwell v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court California v. BrownSearch
-
People v. LanphearSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial