Citation network
Smith Vs. Spisak
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 06, 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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2009 Smith V. SpisakSearch
-
to consider in mitigation only those factors that it unanimously found to be mitigating, see Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
s inadequate closing argument deprived him of effective assistance of counsel, see Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
joined as to Part III. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Smith v. SpisakSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Smith V. SpisakSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-724 Keith Smith, Warden, Petitioner V. FrankSearch
-
consider in mitigation only those factors that the jury unanimously found to be mitigating. See Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
s inadequate closing argument at the penalty phase of the proceeding. See Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
s claims, both on direct appeal and on collateral review. State v. SpisakSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
State v. SpisakSearch
-
violated the U. S. Constitution for the two reasons we consider here. The District Court denied his petition. Spisak v. CoyleSearch
-
s two claims, namely, his mitigation instruction claim and his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Spisak v. MitchellSearch
-
judgment. Hudson v. SpisakSearch
-
U. S. 465 (2007). On remand, the Sixth Circuit reinstated its earlier opinion. Spisak v. HudsonSearch
-
s holding in Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
s opinion, we shall assume the same. Compare Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
see State v. SpisakSearch
-
U. S., at 374 (quoting Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 104 , 110 (1982), in turn quoting Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
quoting Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
see also McKoy v. NorthSearch
-
F. 3d, at 709 (citing Maples v. CoyleSearch
-
for this reason. Mills says nothing about the matter. Neither the parties nor the courts below referred to Beck v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 625 (1980), or identified any other precedent from this Court setting forth this rule. Cf. Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Spisak v. CoyleSearch
-
counsel was not ineffective, or (2) that a better argument would not have made a difference, or (3) both. See State v. SpisakSearch
-
s. See, e.g., Hennon v. CooperSearch
-
see also Weeks v. AngeloneSearch
-
Chadwick v. JaneckaSearch
-
reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered. Smith v. SpisakSearch
-
Opinion of Stevens, J. Smith V. SpisakSearch
-
before it could give effect to a lesser penalty. Following its prior decision in Davis v. MitchellSearch
-
jury instructions, Spisak v. MitchellSearch
-
F. 3d, at 689. The source of this constitutional infirmity, the court decided, was our decision in Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
does not clearly establish that the instructions at issue were unconstitutional. But, in my view, our decision in Beck v. AlabamaSearch
-
and error into the deliberative process that the Constitution could not abide in the capital context. See Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
executed so poorly as to render even the most reasonable of trial tactics constitutionally deficient under Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
error was also harmless because it did not have a substantial and injurious effect on this record, Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
State v. BrooksSearch
-
One juror had the power to prevent a death penalty recommendation before Brooks . See State v. SpringerSearch
-
Penalty Act of 1996 purposes, see ante , at 3. Regardless, in accordance with the view I expressed in Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
s case for aggravating circumstances. See State v. WogenstahlSearch
-
see also State v. JohnsonSearch
-
Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial