Citation network
FranklIn Vs. Lynaugh
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. 164 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
U.S. 164 (1988) Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
question in Lockhart v. McCreeSearch
-
inure to the defendant's benefit where the State is willing to allow him to capitalize upon them. Nor does Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
as illuminated by a disciplinary record, encompasses anything more than likely future behavior. Cf. Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
of its answers to the Special Issues is foreclosed by Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
with his presentation of mitigating evidence or with the jury's ability to give effect to that evidence. Cf. Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a sentence of death. Subsequently, the Texas courts affirmed petitioner's conviction and death sentence. Franklin v. StateSearch
-
Special Issues limited the jury's consideration of mitigating evidence, contrary to this Court's decision in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
evidence at his capital sentencing trial, 484 U.S. 891 (1987), and now affirm the judgment below. II Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
to the jury, or that the jury was instructed to ignore any mitigating evidence petitioner did present. Cf. Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
in capital sentencing -- a practice which this Court relied upon when it concluded in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
that case did not require reversal of our earlier approval of the Texas Special Issue scheme in Jurek. See Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
Quinones v. StateSearch
-
within the meaning of the first Special Issue. See, e.g., Marquez v. StateSearch
-
Fearance v. StateSearch
-
one. See, e.g., Heckert v. StateSearch
-
petitioner presented during the penalty phase of his trial. 13 Record 2952-2953. This case is therefore unlike Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
State has no role in structuring or giving shape to the jury's consideration of these mitigating factors. See Booth v. MarylandSearch
-
balancing mitigating and aggravating factors in a capital sentencing proceeding is constitutionally required. See Zant v. StephensSearch
-
governing the role of mitigating evidence in capital sentencing which have been developed since our decisions in Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 153 (1976), and Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
of capital defendants to appeal for leniency in the exercise of juries' sentencing discretion. See, e.g., Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
U.S. at 455 U. S. 113 -117, Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
California v. BrownSearch
-
U. S. 538 , 479 U. S. 541 (1987). See also Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
with each other. See California v. BrownSearch
-
See Lowenfield v. PhelpsSearch
-
s car, matching samples of the victim's blood, her clothing, and the field where she was found. See Franklin v. StateSearch
-
convictions and death sentences were set aside for reasons unrelated to the issues before us now. See Franklin v. StateSearch
-
Cordova v. StateSearch
-
Johnson v. StateSearch
-
Stewart v. StateSearch
-
Williams v. StateSearch
-
of cases where a death sentence -- but not the underlying conviction -- is struck down on appeal. See, e.g., Scott v. StateSearch
-
Stringer v. StateSearch
-
Whalen v. StateSearch
-
A.2d 552, 569 (Del.1985). Cf. Lockhart v. McCreeSearch
-
this Court has, on several previous occasions, suggested such a method of proceeding on remand. See, e.g., Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Lowenfield v. PhelpsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial