Citation network
Ross Vs. Oklahoma
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 22, 1988
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. 81 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Ross v. OklahomaSearch
-
U.S. 81 (1988) Ross v. OklahomaSearch
-
Although the trial court erred in failing to remove Huling for cause under Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 510 , and Wainwright v. WittSearch
-
s peremptory challenge having removed him as effectively as if the trial court had done so. The broad language in Gray v. MississippiSearch
-
or impairment of the right to exercise such challenges reversible error without a showing of prejudice, cf. Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
Thus, petitioner's due process challenge must fail, since he received all that Oklahoma law allowed him. Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
Brush Co., 455 U. S. 422 , and Hicks v. OklahomaSearch
-
of his peremptory challenges to remove a juror whom the trial court should have excused for cause under Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
for cause and petitioner's subsequent use of a peremptory challenge to strike Huling. We now affirm. In Wainwright v. WittSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id. at 469 U. S. 424 (quoting Adams v. TexasSearch
-
In arguing that the trial court's error abridged his right to an impartial jury, petitioner relies heavily upon Gray v. MississippiSearch
-
U.S. at 481 U. S. 665 (emphasis in original) (quoting Moore v. EstelleSearch
-
Stilson v. UnitedSearch
-
had to use a peremptory challenge to achieve that result does not mean the Sixth Amendment was violated. See Hopt v. UtahSearch
-
We conclude that no violation of petitioner's right to an impartial jury occurred. Relying largely on Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
Brush Co., 455 U. S. 422 (1982), and Hicks v. OklahomaSearch
-
Swain, supra, at 380 U. S. 219 (quoting Pointer v. UnitedSearch
-
Frazier v. UnitedSearch
-
reversal only if the defendant exhausts all peremptory challenges and an incompetent juror is forced upon him. Ferrell v. StateSearch
-
Stott v. StateSearch
-
P.2d 1061, 1064-1065 (Okla.Crim.App.1975). In McDonald v. StateSearch
-
juror he desires or may require that codefendant to use his challenges in a way other than he wishes. United States v. MarchantSearch
-
his challenges prior to the State, so that some may be wasted on jurors whom the State would have challenged. Pointer v. UnitedSearch
-
so that each has only a small portion of the number of peremptories he would have if tried separately. Stilson v. UnitedSearch
-
Delaware v. VanSearch
-
unsuccessfully challenged for cause, petitioners eventually exhausted all of their peremptory challenges. See Spies v. PeopleSearch
-
occurs if the defendant uses one or more challenges to remove jurors who should have been excused for cause. See Swain v. AlabamaSearch
-
Spies v. IllinoisSearch
-
Stroud v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 648 , 481 U. S. 665 (1987), quoting Moore v. EstelleSearch
-
circumstances. The trial court's exclusion of this qualified juror was Sixth Amendment error under Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 510 (1968), and Wainwright v. WittSearch
-
Pointer v. UnitedSearch
-
cannot stand. Just a few examples from the criminal context suffice to establish this principle. In United States v. JacksonSearch
-
Id. at 390 U. S. 582 . And in Brooks v. TennesseeSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ross v. OklahomaSearch
-
Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
and Wainwright v. WittSearch
-
Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
and Hicks v. OklahomaSearch
-
In Wainwright v. WittSearch
-
Adams v. TexasSearch
-
Moore v. EstelleSearch
-
See Hopt v. UtahSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial