Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Griffith Vs. Kentucky

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 13, 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

72 entries 6 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Stovall Vs. Denno US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
  2. Destefano Vs. Woods US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1968
  3. Daniel Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1975
  4. Michigan Vs. Payne US Supreme Court · May 21, 1973
    Relied / Followed
  5. Gosa Vs. Mayden US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1973
  6. Solem Vs. Stumes US Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1984
  7. U.S. 314 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Griffith v. Kentucky
    Search
  8. U.S. 314 (1987) Griffith v. Kentucky
    Search
  9. U.S. 314 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kentucky Syllabus in Batson V. Kentucky
    Search
  10. the opinion of the Court. These cases, one state and one federal, concern the retrospective application of Batson v. Kentucky
    Search
  11. that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges deprived him of guaranteed equal protection. It relied on Swain v. Alabama
    Search
  12. timely filed here a petition for a writ of certiorari. While his petition was pending, this Court decided Batson v. Kentucky
    Search
  13. supra, where it rejected a portion of the reasoning of Swain v. Alabama
    Search
  14. on which the Kentucky court had relied. 476 U.S. at 476 U. S. 89 -96. Two months later, in Allen v. Hardy
    Search
  15. a three-pronged analysis for claims of retroactivity of new constitutional rules of criminal procedure. See Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  16. U. S. 618 (1965). In Linkletter, the Court held that Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  17. U.S. at 381 U. S. 636 . See also Page 479 U. S. 321 Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  18. and to convictions pending on direct review. See Johnson v. New
    Search
  19. were held not to apply retroactively either to final cases or to cases pending on direct review. See, e.g., Stovall v. Denno
    Search
  20. Desist v. United
    Search
  21. U. S. 31 (1975) (per curiam). In United States v. Johnson
    Search
  22. Id. at 457 U. S. 548 (quoting Desist v. United
    Search
  23. applying new rules retroactively to cases in the latter category, was explained at length by Justice Harlan in Desist v. United
    Search
  24. States, 394 U.S. at 394 U. S. 256 (dissenting opinion), and in Mackey v. United
    Search
  25. States, 401 U. S. 667 , 401 U. S. 675 (1971) (opinion concurring in judgment). In United States v. Johnson
    Search
  26. Mackey v. United
    Search
  27. Ibid. See United States v. Johnson
    Search
  28. application of new rules violates the principle of treating similarly situated defendants the same. See Desist v. United
    Search
  29. States, 394 U.S. at 394 U. S. 258 -259 (Harlan, J., dissenting). As we pointed out in United States v. Johnson
    Search
  30. Ibid. Page 479 U. S. 324 In United States v. Johnson
    Search
  31. with past precedent -- is the one at issue in these cases. We described it in United States v. Johnson
    Search
  32. S. 248 , it almost invariably has gone on to find such a newly minted principle nonretroactive. See United States v. Peltier
    Search
  33. Williams v. United
    Search
  34. a retroactive application of the new rule -- have virtually compelled a finding of nonretroactivity. See, e.g., Gosa v. Mayden
    Search
  35. that lower courts had uniformly approved. Id. at 457 U. S. 551 . The Fourth Amendment ruling in Payton v. New
    Search
  36. York, 445 U. S. 573 (1980), with which United States v. Johnson
    Search
  37. exception. 457 U.S. at 457 U. S. 553 -554. In Shea v. Louisiana
    Search
  38. U. S. 51 (1985), we applied United States v. Johnson
    Search
  39. and held that the Fifth Amendment rule announced in Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  40. retroactive effect than a Fifth Amendment rule. 470 U.S. at 470 U. S. 59 . In addition, as in United States v. Johnson
    Search
  41. exception. The previous Term, in Solem v. Stumes
    Search
  42. with the past, however, is squarely before us in the present cases. In Allen v. Hardy
    Search
  43. should be retroactive to cases pending on direct review. For the same reasons that persuaded us in United States v. Johnson
    Search
  44. regardless of the specific characteristics of the particular new rule announced. The Court recognized in United States v. Johnson
    Search
  45. same problem of not treating similarly situated defendants the same. James Kirkland Batson, the petitioner in Batson v. Kentucky
    Search
  46. Hankerson v. North
    Search
  47. Carolina, 432 U. S. 233 , 432 U. S. 247 (1977) (opinion concurring in judgment), quoting Desist v. United
    Search
  48. States, 394 U.S. at 394 U. S. 255 (Douglas, J., dissenting). See also Michigan v. Payne
    Search
  49. Page 479 U. S. 328 one of many similarly situated defendants receives the benefit of the new rule. United States v. Johnson
    Search
  50. Together with No. 85-5731, Brown v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial