Citation network
Satterwhite Vs. Texas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 31, 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. 249 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Satterwhite v. TexasSearch
-
U.S. 249 (1988) Satterwhite v. TexasSearch
-
Appeals held that the admission of Dr. Grigson's testimony violated the Sixth Amendment right, recognized in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
Appeals properly determined that there had been no compliance with the Sixth Amendment requirement, set out in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
not satisfy the Sixth Amendment. Pp. 486 U. S. 256 -258. 2. The harmless error rule set forth in Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
applies to the admission of psychiatric testimony in violation of the Sixth Amendment right set out in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
in the consideration or decision of the case. JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
admission of Dr. Grigson's testimony violated the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel recognized in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
that a Sixth Amendment violation tainting an entire criminal proceeding can never be considered harmless, Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
to decide whether harmless error analysis applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment right set out in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
U.S. 905 (1987). II The controversy in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
U.S. at 451 U. S. 471 , quoting Smith v. EstelleSearch
-
F.2d 694, 708 (CA5 1979), and Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the Sixth Amendment notice requirement set out in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
a constitutional error did not contribute to the verdict, the error is harmless and the verdict may stand. Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 570 , 478 U. S. 577 (1986) (quoting Delaware v. VanSearch
-
harmless. Sixth Amendment violations that pervade the entire proceeding fall within this category. See Holloway v. ArkansasSearch
-
Chapman, supra, at 386 U. S. 23 , n. 8 (citing Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
White v. MarylandSearch
-
urges us to adopt an automatic rule of reversal for violations of the Sixth Amendment right recognized in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
or during a critical stage in, at least, the prosecution of a capital offense, reversal is automatic. Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
caused by a Sixth Amendment violation is limited to the erroneous admission of particular evidence at trial. In Milton v. WainwrightSearch
-
U. S. 371 (1972), for example, the Court held the admission of a confession obtained in violation of Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
admission of identification testimony obtained in violation of the right to counsel at a post-indictment lineup. Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
would apply in a noncapital case to constitutional error in the use of a psychological evaluation at trial. Buchanan v. KentuckySearch
-
rule applies to the admission of psychiatric testimony in violation of the Sixth Amendment right set out in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
Satterwhite now contends that Dr. Schroeder's testimony was also admitted in violation of Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
examination on which Dr. Grigson testified at the capital sentencing proceeding was in bald violation of Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
if certain constitutional errors might properly be subject to such harmless error analysis, a violation of Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
the appropriate sentence requires a profoundly moral evaluation of the defendant's character and crime. See California v. BrownSearch
-
Moreover, although much of the Court's capital jurisprudence since Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
sentence in a specific case, the sentencer nonetheless is afforded substantial discretion. See, e.g., McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
Woodson v. PageSearch
-
error on the basis of a cold record is a dangerously speculative enterprise. As the Court recognized in Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
is later determined to violate a defendant's constitutional rights is nowhere apparent in the record. In McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
Id. at 481 U. S. 311 , quoting Peters v. KiffSearch
-
awesome severity of a sentence of death makes it qualitatively different from all other sanctions. See, e.g., Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
California v. RamosSearch
-
sentencing phase, such a situation is not presented when the error is a violation of the Sixth Amendment under Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
II As an initial matter, the Court in Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Satterwhite v. TexasSearch
-
Estelle v. SmithSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial